Seriously though, I wouldn't give up Beckham for Adrian. By taking Beckham out, you'd be sort of lessening the impact that Adrian would have on the offense.

Marqhead

02-27-2010, 09:21 PM

I'd have no problem looting our farm system to get Gonzalez provided we can sign him to an extension. It's that last part that I'm worried about.

Noneck

02-27-2010, 09:28 PM

If they can lock up Gonzalez long term, I would give up Beckham in a heartbeat.

sox1970

02-27-2010, 09:30 PM

Adrian Gonzalez--the new Chone Figgins.

Beckham isn't going anywhere.

#1swisher

02-27-2010, 09:41 PM

Someone want to remind me or Peavy where the Padres finished in 2009.

DirtySox

02-27-2010, 09:42 PM

Beckham is staying put. Trading him for what would likely be 1.5 years of Adrian would be a boneheaded move.

DonnieDarko

02-27-2010, 09:51 PM

Beckham is staying put. Trading him for what would likely be 1.5 years of Adrian would be a boneheaded move.

Even if we could lock up Gonzales long-term I wouldn't do it for the same reasons that JermaineDye05 listed. I just don't see much upside to that.

thomas35forever

02-27-2010, 09:57 PM

If they have to give up Beckham, screw it.

oeo

02-27-2010, 10:28 PM

A great second baseman is a lot harder to find than a great first baseman. Dealing Beckham even if we locked Adrian up long term would be stupid, IMO.

DirtySox

02-27-2010, 10:35 PM

A great second baseman is a lot harder to find than a great first baseman. Dealing Beckham even if we locked Adrian up long term would be stupid, IMO.

No doubt. You lop off the top half of the farm before you trade Gordon. Hudson, Flowers, Mitchell, Danks, Morel, Viciedo. et al.

Danielgosox38

02-27-2010, 10:39 PM

Give up the best Sox home grown talent in years? Aw hell no.

LoveYourSuit

02-27-2010, 10:40 PM

A great second baseman is a lot harder to find than a great first baseman. Dealing Beckham even if we locked Adrian up long term would be stupid, IMO.

Can we wait for Beckham to play at least one game at this level at 2B before we label him great at this position?

oeo

02-27-2010, 10:42 PM

Can we wait for Beckham to play at least one game at this level at 2B before we label him great at this position?

It's his bat that's going to make him great.

asindc

02-27-2010, 10:45 PM

Can we wait for Beckham to play at least one game at this level at 2B before we label him great at this position?

Yes, we can. By the way, I agree with all the other posts in this thread.

Brian26

02-27-2010, 10:47 PM

Just to clarify, because I saw some confusion on another White Sox board...

It wasn't Peavy suggesting that Beckham could be dealt. The article says "one White Sox person" mentioned that Beckham could be available.

sox1970

02-27-2010, 10:48 PM

Just to clarify, because I saw some confusion on another White Sox board...

It wasn't Peavy suggesting that Beckham could be dealt. The article says "one White Sox person" mentioned that Beckham could be available.

That "one White Sox person" doesn't know what they're talking about.

Jaysox

02-27-2010, 10:55 PM

That "one White Sox person" doesn't know what they're talking about.
Or may not even exist!

Pablo_Honey

02-27-2010, 10:59 PM

That "one White Sox person" doesn't know what they're talking about.
While it may seem very unlikely that Kenny would trade Beckham, we all know Kenny can be stupidly aggressive at times and pull off trades nobody really expected (See Example: McCarthy for Danks) so I can see why one could assume Beckham is tradeable. Nevertheless, I'm sure 99.9% of White Sox fans wouldn't want Beckham to be traded whatsoever so to suggest such an idea is a mistake on the person's part, if the guy exists at all. The only instance where I see Kenny move Beckham is if the staff saw something wrong with Beckham but if they did, they wouldn't have drafted him in the first place.

oeo

02-27-2010, 11:00 PM

While it may seem very unlikely that Kenny would trade Beckham, we all know Kenny can be stupidly aggressive at times and pull off trades nobody really expected (See Example: McCarthy for Danks)

Methinks the Sox knew McCarthy wouldn't hold up health-wise. Besides, Danks was a former first round pick, younger, and left-handed.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-27-2010, 11:30 PM

Give up the best Sox home grown talent in years? Aw hell no.He was kind of Georgia Bulldog's grown. He only played a little while in our minor leagues. :tongue:

dwalteroo

02-27-2010, 11:54 PM

At this point, I trust Kenny's judgment. YES, he's made some moves we all have issues with. At the same time, if he decided Beckham for Gonzalez was worth it, that he felt there was a good chance of locking AGon up for longer (I agree that trade for 1.5 years is crazy), then even with Beckham, okay.

Don't get me wrong, Gordon Beckham is the best damn thing to come out of the White Sox farm system in forever, and he has virtually unlimited potential, but I trust that Kenny and the staff know more than I know sitting here. As much as I get attached to players (I can't imagine the Sox without PK), I know it's better that there's someone making these decisions who is emotionally removed from the whole thing. I'd hate to see Beckham go, but I wouldn't mind seeing Gonzalez in a WS uniform.

Noneck

02-28-2010, 12:04 AM

The love a of unproven player compared to a proven very good young hitter (hitting in one of the few pitchers parks), 2 time allstar, 2 time gold glover, and regarded as one of the best young proven players in baseball, really amazes me.

If the discussion was based on Beckham being on the cheap for years to come, I can understand. Because Gonzalez is set to make big money soon. But if this is based on the quality of the ball player, this is ridiculous.

Pablo_Honey

02-28-2010, 12:17 AM

The love a of unproven player compared to a proven very good young hitter (hitting in one of the few pitchers parks), 2 time allstar, 2 time gold glover, and regarded as one of the best young proven players in baseball, really amazes me.

If the discussion was based on Beckham being on the cheap for years to come, I can understand. Because Gonzalez is set to make big money soon. But if this is based on the quality of the ball player this is ridiculous.
True, Beckham hasn't established himself as a proven Major Leaguer but his value to this team is equal to, if not greater, than A-Gon's and that's without taking the price difference into account. Bacon can play 3 different infield positions (Yeah I know he's not GG-worthy at any of these positions but it's better than being limited to 1B or DH) and his bat profiles great at any one of them. He's also a home-grown prospect, drafted by us and brought up through our minor league system. If he keeps it up, he will be a franchise player. He was an 8th overall pick and he seems to have one of the highest potentials of any players we've had in recent years. Not to mention, this offense may need that one proven lefty power bat but that's only because we have guys like Beckham, Quentin and Rios to complement such a bat. The tradeoff may not be significant enough to give up Beckham in the end.

oeo

02-28-2010, 12:31 AM

The love a of unproven player compared to a proven very good young hitter (hitting in one of the few pitchers parks), 2 time allstar, 2 time gold glover, and regarded as one of the best young proven players in baseball, really amazes me.

If the discussion was based on Beckham being on the cheap for years to come, I can understand. Because Gonzalez is set to make big money soon. But if this is based on the quality of the ball player, this is ridiculous.

Gonzalez isn't exactly a proven elite bat either. He's been good but has only been great one year.

Again, it's much easier to find a very good bat at first base than at second base. Beckham may not have proven himself yet, but do you think he's seriously going to crash and burn? Beckham isn't your average White Sox prospect. We didn't even have to develop the dude.

mzh

02-28-2010, 12:36 AM

No doubt. You lop off the top half of the farm before you trade Gordon. Hudson, Flowers, Mitchell, Danks, Morel, Viciedo. et al.
So would you give up a package of Hudson, Flowers, and possibly Viciedo? It depends on whether we can lock him up long term IMO.

DSpivack

02-28-2010, 12:39 AM

Gonzalez isn't exactly a proven elite bat either. He's been good but has only been great one year.

Again, it's much easier to find a very good bat at first base than at second base. Beckham may not have proven himself yet, but do you think he's seriously going to crash and burn? Beckham isn't your average White Sox prospect. We didn't even have to develop the dude.

His career averages are .280/.360/.500. Beckham last year as rookie hit .270/.347/.460. Yes, the home parks are very different, [and sure, call me a homer] but I don't think the difference between the two hitters is drastically different. Especially not when taking into account position and contract.

oeo

02-28-2010, 12:41 AM

Also, don't you like the idea of building your offense around Adrian Gonzalez and Gordon Beckham rather than Adrian Gonzalez and Tyler Flowers?

oeo

02-28-2010, 12:43 AM

His career averages are .280/.360/.500. Beckham last year as rookie hit .270/.347/.460. Yes, the home parks are very different, [and sure, call me a homer] but I don't think the difference between the two hitters is drastically different. Especially not when taking into account position and contract.

I actually take those comments about him not being elite back. The guy has been elite for a few years now away from Petco Park. He's averaged only 12 homeruns in Petco Park the last three years, yet he's still hit 30+ in each of those three seasons. He would likely be a monster here.

Still, I'll take the very good second baseman over the very good first baseman. Actually, let me rephrase that, I'll take both the very good second baseman and the very good first baseman.

DonnieDarko

02-28-2010, 12:50 AM

So would you give up a package of Hudson, Flowers, and possibly Viciedo? It depends on whether we can lock him up long term IMO.I admit that I still want to know what Viciedo and Flowers and especially Hudson are capable of. But I would definitely give it some hard thought if they were traded. Hudson is kinda the backup starter plan for next year, and you don't want to go into the season without that. Can't remember the last time I've felt so good about a rookie pitcher. I don't fully trust Carlos Torres like I do Hudson. Flowers I would consider letting go. Viciedo? I'm on the fence with him. Throw-ins could be Nix, Lillibridge...maybe Torres himself.

For the trade to happen, though? It would have to be during a time that there's some sort of unseen financial crisis or the team is so hopelessly out of contention that they need to just shed payroll to avoid a big loss...I don't see him coming to the South Side, and if he does, he might be another trade deadline trade.

Beckham and Gonzales together gives me some kind of long term contention hope--with this pitching staff especially...even if that staff is held together for another 1-2 years. But hopefully we'll have more years than that, of course.

Noneck

02-28-2010, 12:51 AM

Also, don't you like the idea of building your offense around Adrian Gonzalez and Gordon Beckham rather than Adrian Gonzalez and Tyler Flowers?

Of course I would but you have to give to get and I would give to get Gonzalez.

oeo

02-28-2010, 12:52 AM

I admit that I still want to know what Viciedo and Flowers and especially Hudson are capable of. But I would definitely give it some hard thought if they were traded. Hudson is kinda the backup starter plan for next year, and you don't want to go into the season without that. Can't remember the last time I've felt so good about a rookie pitcher. I don't fully trust Carlos Torres like I do Hudson. Flowers I would consider letting go. Viciedo? I'm on the fence with him.

You probably don't trust Torres because Torres isn't a big league pitcher.

Viciedo is rendered useless if we acquire Gonzalez and lock him up. He showed a lot of improvement late last year, I think his trade value is going to go up quite a bit by July.

oeo

02-28-2010, 12:53 AM

Of course I would but you have to give to get and I would give to get Gonzalez.

I would give too, but not a future perennial All Star at second base.

Noneck

02-28-2010, 01:01 AM

I would give too, but not a future perennial All Star at second base.

I love your confidence level in Beckham considering he will be a Sox for years to come because hes on the cheap and Gonzalez will be making big bucks. So I will quit dreaming my pipe dream of Beckham for Gonzalez.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-28-2010, 01:51 AM

Did Peavy say I wants Beckham gone and Adrian Gonzalez here??? I'm pretty sure that trade isn't the answer to our problems, I'm actually pretty sure it makes us worse. I'd rather have Beckham and Konerko than Gonzales and Lillibridge. I don't understand why we are debating this. We have no valuable second, shortstop, or 3rd base players to even be considering trading Beckham. I'd be perfectly fine giving up maybe Hudson or Flowers... we could always sign AJ and hope he can last another 5 years. Also, our pitching staff is young, I don't think Hudson is our most needed prospect.

If we could get Gonzalez w/o losing any of our starters, I'd be the happest fan alive.

Nellie_Fox

02-28-2010, 02:02 AM

I'd rather have Beckham and Konerko than Gonzales and Lillibridge.There's the important consideration.

I seriously can't figure out what the hell you're asking.
He is saying which would you rather have if beckham was traded for gonzalez.

Obviously beckham being traded would leave a void at 2nd, and konerko would take over DH if this happened.

I think he overlooked that vizquel would end up playing more short, moving alexei over, and or one of them would take over 2b. I doubt it would be Lillibridge or Nix's job as an every day starter.

Personally I'd rather not trade beckham at this point. I think other DHs will be available during the year, and kenny will get something done if need be.

DaveFeelsRight

02-28-2010, 07:12 AM

I'll give anything but Beckham

Noneck

02-28-2010, 07:56 AM

I seriously can't figure out what the hell you're asking.

I guess I didnt understand your comment also.

cws05champ

02-28-2010, 08:00 AM

He is saying which would you rather have if beckham was traded for gonzalez.

Obviously beckham being traded would leave a void at 2nd, and konerko would take over DH if this happened.

I think he overlooked that vizquel would end up playing more short, moving alexei over, and or one of them would take over 2b. I doubt it would be Lillibridge or Nix's job as an every day starter.

Personally I'd rather not trade beckham at this point. I think other DHs will be available during the year, and kenny will get something done if need be.

Exactly...next year Adam Dunn and others may be available, then you could have Dunn at 1B and Beckham at 2B. I know people will say that what makes Adrian attractive is his contract, but his 2011 is a club option. If someone traded for him you don't think part of the negotiation on a long term deal would be to delete the 2011 option and have his high money years start next year? Then you are really only getting a bargain for one year....or half a year most likely at this point.

cheezheadsoxfan

02-28-2010, 08:54 AM

Seems like "one White Sox person" is pretty vague. :scratch:

Brian26

02-28-2010, 09:24 AM

Did Peavy say I wants Beckham gone and Adrian Gonzalez here???

Are you asking this rhetorically or not? I already answered this question on the previous page.

tick53

02-28-2010, 09:39 AM

I'd like to see Gonzales here but not for Gordon. Anyway, I agree with Bob Nightengale when he said that this trade talk would not happen until the off season anyway.

sullythered

02-28-2010, 09:47 AM

If the Padres think they can get Gordon Beckham for a year and a half of Adrian Gonzalez, they are high. We gave up FAR less than that for several years of Jake Peavy, who is more valuable than Adrian Gonzalez.

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 10:25 AM

If the Padres think they can get Gordon Beckham for a year and a half of Adrian Gonzalez, they are high. We gave up FAR less than that for several years of Jake Peavy, who is more valuable than Adrian Gonzalez.

Nope. Adrian is going to fetch a nice haul. Moving Peavy was financially motivated. Poreda/Carter/Richard was a pretty ****ty return.

Ranger

02-28-2010, 11:26 AM

I wouldn't even do it for Gonzalez :tongue:

Seriously though, I wouldn't give up Beckham for Adrian. By taking Beckham out, you'd be sort of lessening the impact that Adrian would have on the offense.

This is the probably the best reason not to make that trade. It it's not really about losing Beckham (I would think about it, honestly, if the opportunity were there), but if you trade him to get Gonzalez, the team doesn't really get better. Granted, I'd hate to lose Beckham because I think he'll end up having a really nice career.

Adrian Gonzalez--the new Chone Figgins.

Beckham isn't going anywhere.

The new Figgins/Crawford.

Can we wait for Beckham to play at least one game at this level at 2B before we label him great at this position?

There is little reason to think he won't be a very good player there.

Tragg

02-28-2010, 11:33 AM

How about we sign someone like Gonzales as a FA instead of trading every decent young player we have for him.

Pablo_Honey

02-28-2010, 11:42 AM

How about we sign someone like Gonzales as a FA instead of trading every decent young player we have for him.
Yeah, when he turns 40. Kenny always gets his guy. Someone like A-Gon is usually overpriced on the FA market and Sox has trouble landing those types. A-Gon is in the conversation because he is signed cheap for 2 years right now and he will become expensive very soon. Padres are not in contention and they would love to get a nice group of prospects in return for A-Gon before they can't afford him and has to let him go as an FA.

veeter

02-28-2010, 11:42 AM

Gordon Beckham isn't going anywhere.

Lip Man 1

02-28-2010, 11:52 AM

Tragg:

When the Sox start drawing three million a season then you'll get your wish with type-A, top players.

Until then.......the key word is "creative!"

Lip

veeter

02-28-2010, 12:13 PM

I actually take those comments about him not being elite back. The guy has been elite for a few years now away from Petco Park. He's averaged only 12 homeruns in Petco Park the last three years, yet he's still hit 30+ in each of those three seasons. He would likely be a monster here.

Still, I'll take the very good second baseman over the very good first baseman. Actually, let me rephrase that, I'll take both the very good second baseman and the very good first baseman.And that's how Kenny thinks. He wants them BOTH. Kenny doesn't trade young, MAJOR league established, stud players. He trades stud MINOR league players, that may or may not do anything in the majors. Clayton Richard and McCarthy were the exception. But neither of those two come close to Beckham's talent. I'm really surprised anyone on this board is even entertaining the thought that he'd trade Beckham. I can understand goofy the reporter, who made this whole thing up, doing it though.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-28-2010, 12:31 PM

Are you asking this rhetorically or not? I already answered this question on the previous page.Oh sorry.

PalehosePlanet

02-28-2010, 12:41 PM

Tragg:

When the Sox start drawing three million a season then you'll get your wish with type-A, top players.

Until then.......the key word is "creative!"

Lip

But in Tragg's defense, we have traded (or acquired) for players with type-A contracts (Peavy and Rios) and tried to trade for Halladay, as well as offering Hunter 5-75.

Now I understand that KW often targets players that haven't yet hit the FA market in their careers, but sometimes there is no need to be "creative" if we are simply more aggressive in the FA market.

oeo

02-28-2010, 12:46 PM

But in Tragg's defense, we have traded (or acquired) for players with type-A contracts (Peavy and Rios) and tried to trade for Halladay, as well as offering Hunter 5-75.

Now I understand that KW often targets players that haven't yet hit the FA market in their careers, but sometimes there is no need to be "creative" if we are simply more aggressive in the FA market.

I think they're aggressive if they really like the player. There's a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid. Overpaying gives you a terrible contract (like Linebrink) that you're going to have to live with for years. I think what the Sox do in the free agent market is a strength. They set their max bid of what they think the player is worth and stick to it. That can be tough to do, I'm sure, if they really want the player, but it means a lot towards the team not only now, but in the future.

LoveYourSuit

02-28-2010, 01:26 PM

On a 1 for 1 trade, I would take Gonzalez if all it took was to give up Beckham.

The numbers Gonzalez has put up in one of the worst hitter parks in baseball are pretty damn good.

jabrch

02-28-2010, 01:31 PM

Tragg:

When the Sox start drawing three million a season then you'll get your wish with type-A, top players.

Until then.......the key word is "creative!"

Lip

or, until then, you will all have to settle for a 105mm+ payroll. Cheap...

JermaineDye05

02-28-2010, 01:34 PM

On a 1 for 1 trade, I would take Gonzalez if all it took was to give up Beckham.

The numbers Gonzalez has put up in one of the worst hitter parks in baseball are pretty damn good.

I'm still not sure about that. You'd have to guarantee me we'd sign Gonzalez to an extension before I considered giving up Beckham. I believe Gonzalez is a FA after this season or next. We have control over Beckham for quite some time.

asindc

02-28-2010, 01:42 PM

I think they're aggressive if they really like the player. There's a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid. Overpaying gives you a terrible contract (like Linebrink) that you're going to have to live with for years. I think what the Sox do in the free agent market is a strength. They set their max bid of what they think the player is worth and stick to it. That can be tough to do, I'm sure, if they really want the player, but it means a lot towards the team not only now, but in the future.

... or like Hunter's, Fukodome's, Zito's, Wells', or possibly Damon's this year. A very underrated trait of any GM is the ability to walk away when the price gets too high. Yes, you can miss on some players that way, but rarely does a substantially overpaid player actually earn the full measure of his contract. KW is great at avoiding such contracts, which allows him to trade for a guy like Peavy when the opportunity is there. The only guys on the team who are good bets to not earn their contracts are Rios and Linebrink. The flexibility that allows has a lot of value.

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 01:55 PM

I really don't think a swap of Gordo for Adrian improves the team all that significantly. It actually might be close to a wash considering positional value.

Frater Perdurabo

02-28-2010, 01:59 PM

I'd like Gonzalez, too, but not at the cost of Beckham.

After this season, Carl Crawford and Adam Dunn likely will be free agents. Either one of them would be an excellent #3 hitter.

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 02:03 PM

I'd like Gonzalez, too, but not at the cost of Beckham.

After this season, Carl Crawford and Adam Dunn likely will be free agents. Either one of them would be an excellent #3 hitter.

Prince might hit the market as well.

RockJock07

02-28-2010, 02:23 PM

Prince might hit the market as well.

I would take Prince in a heartbeat. He'll command a ton of money if he can duplicate the season he had in 2009. Unfortantly he has Boras as his agent and Adam Dunn can mirror his numbers for less money.

JermaineDye05

02-28-2010, 02:26 PM

Prince might hit the market as well.

I'm spitballing here, but maybe that's one reason KW decided to re-open talks with Boras this past offseason? He did mention something like they were able to weather storm and lay the ground work to pursue deals in the future.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-28-2010, 02:31 PM

I don't understand why KW isn't trying harder to make this year easy. We are one decent player away from running away with the division. If we can get Konerko as our DH and Gonzalez as our 1B, we will run away with this crappy division. I'm fine with making our farm system worse, we only have a couple of guys that are nearing the end of their careers... if we get Gonzalez, this team could be set for a while. I hope KW likes Peavy enough to listen to him... I'm becoming less and less confident as the ESPN predictions keep rolling in.

JermaineDye05

02-28-2010, 02:35 PM

I don't understand why KW isn't trying harder to make this year easy. We are one decent player away from running away with the division. If we can get Konerko as our DH and Gonzalez as our 1B, we will run away with this crappy division. I'm fine with making our farm system worse, we only have a couple of guys that are nearing the end of their careers... if we get Gonzalez, this team could be set for a while. I hope KW likes Peavy enough to listen to him... I'm becoming less and less confident as the ESPN predictions keep rolling in.

I think the problem is that SD wants to wait until the deadline to trade Gonzalez because they know for sure that Boston will be involved and their prospects are much more attractive than ours. The only question is if Epstein is willing to part with someone decent.

jabrch

02-28-2010, 02:38 PM

I don't understand why KW isn't trying harder to make this year easy.

Ah yes - KW isn't trying hard enough. That's the problem....

We are one decent player away from running away with the division.

That's not true at all. One "decent" player would have to replace some other player who may well be decent anyhow - we need a major improvement, not "decent"

If we can get Konerko as our DH and Gonzalez as our 1B, we will run away with this crappy division.

Nobody disagrees that would be a good idea - but at what cost?

I'm fine with making our farm system worse, we only have a couple of guys that are nearing the end of their careers...

But that may not be enough.

I hope KW likes Peavy enough to listen to him...

It has nothing to do with liking anyone.

I'm becoming less and less confident as the ESPN predictions keep rolling in.

Ah yes - the ESPN predictions - that's a great way to evaluate your favorite team.

thomas35forever

02-28-2010, 02:54 PM

Peavy has confirmed the talks with Kenny.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-28-2010, 03:02 PM

Ah yes - KW isn't trying hard enough. That's the problem....That's not true at all. One "decent" player would have to replace some other player who may well be decent anyhow - we need a major improvement, not "decent". Nobody disagrees that would be a good idea - but at what cost? But that may not be enough.It has nothing to do with liking anyone. Ah yes - the ESPN predictions - that's a great way to evaluate your favorite team.By decent, I meant Gonzalez and he would be replacing Jones/Kotsay... :redneck And I know it's now about liking, it's just I hope KW actually cares that one of his players, even the most confident, know's our offense isn't as good as it could be.

Pablo_Honey

02-28-2010, 03:06 PM

I don't understand why KW isn't trying harder to make this year easy. We are one decent player away from running away with the division. If we can get Konerko as our DH and Gonzalez as our 1B, we will run away with this crappy division. I'm fine with making our farm system worse, we only have a couple of guys that are nearing the end of their careers... if we get Gonzalez, this team could be set for a while. I hope KW likes Peavy enough to listen to him... I'm becoming less and less confident as the ESPN predictions keep rolling in.
Kenny is most likely to be trying his best WITHIN the budget he is given and the talent level he has. Kenny tried to fill the need through FA market when he went after Matsui and Damon but neither guy wanted to come here, so that's not his fault. Right now, he has only 2 legit tradeable chips in Flowers and Hudson but those two will have significant value to us in the near future. Those two guys are also not all that highly touted outside of our fanbase. Combine those two facts and it's easy to see why A-Gon is not here already. By the way, predictions are predictions. Don't let that bother you too much.

soltrain21

02-28-2010, 03:08 PM

If Peavy can make this happen, then I'm asking Kenny for a puppy.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-28-2010, 03:09 PM

Kenny is most likely to be trying his best WITHIN the budget he is given and the talent level he has. Kenny tried to fill the need through FA market when he went after Matsui and Damon but neither guy wanted to come here, so that's not his fault. Right now, he has only 2 legit tradeable chips in Flowers and Hudson but those two will have significant value to us in the near future. Those two guys are also not all that highly touted outside of our fanbase. Combine those two facts and it's easy to see why A-Gon is not here already. By the way, predictions are predictions. Don't let that bother you too much.I never care for what ESPN has to say about baseball, because baseball is just Cubs, Yankees, and Red Sox to them. But still, if Damon is what makes Detroit a team that has a chance, I can only image what Gonzalez could do for our already good team. I still can't believe this whole Damon thing has Detroit better than us is ESPN's eyes... I find it unbelievable.

Hitmen77

02-28-2010, 03:11 PM

I wouldn't even do it for Gonzalez :tongue:

Seriously though, I wouldn't give up Beckham for Adrian. By taking Beckham out, you'd be sort of lessening the impact that Adrian would have on the offense.

The love a of unproven player compared to a proven very good young hitter (hitting in one of the few pitchers parks), 2 time allstar, 2 time gold glover, and regarded as one of the best young proven players in baseball, really amazes me.

If the discussion was based on Beckham being on the cheap for years to come, I can understand. Because Gonzalez is set to make big money soon. But if this is based on the quality of the ball player, this is ridiculous.

I think these are good points that people are bringing up. It's not that Beckham is better than Gonzalez, but giving up Beckham creates another hole in our lineup and lessens the impact of this hypothetical trade.

The fact that the Sox can have Beckham for cheap for many years is an important consideration. If I'm not mistaken, the only big contract coming off the books after this year is Konerko's. Raises due to other players for 2011 may eat up most of that money too.

If the Sox are almost maxed out on their payroll this year, they'll probably be in the same situation going into the next offseason. Having someone with Beckham's potential available for cheap for the next few seasons may be an important part of the Sox being able to get more talent.

mzh

02-28-2010, 03:18 PM

A thought of mine, 99% probably not happening, but what if Rios were to be part of a midseason trade for A-Gon? If Jones is having a decent year, he could take over at center, and since Gonzalez is about to get expensive anyway, maybe we could give a package of Rios (expensive, but a good player unless he repeats 2009, and less expensive that Gonzalez is about to be) and, say, Flowers and/or Viciedo? The get a proven player for less money than A-Gon, plues two high ceiling prospects. This could also work if Kenny decides that Jordan Danks could be ready soon.

I only bring this up because it would clear space to extend Gonzalez.

Ranger

02-28-2010, 03:24 PM

How about we sign someone like Gonzales as a FA instead of trading every decent young player we have for him.

I think they're aggressive if they really like the player. There's a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid. Overpaying gives you a terrible contract (like Linebrink) that you're going to have to live with for years. I think what the Sox do in the free agent market is a strength. They set their max bid of what they think the player is worth and stick to it. That can be tough to do, I'm sure, if they really want the player, but it means a lot towards the team not only now, but in the future.

The Sox can't really afford to be stupid. Like Lip said, until they draw 3 million fans a season, they kind of have to be careful. The only thing I would say about Linebrink is, while it is not a great contract, it's $19 million, not $90 mil. It's much more difficult for them to overspend for a premier position player these days than it would be for a reliever or something like that.

I'm hardly ever opposed to trading prospects for a player like Gonzlez that is young himself and is already a legit player. As promising as some of the Sox younger talent is, the truth is that we have no idea how they're going to actually turn out as ML players.

On a 1 for 1 trade, I would take Gonzalez if all it took was to give up Beckham.

The numbers Gonzalez has put up in one of the worst hitter parks in baseball are pretty damn good.

I would definitely not dismiss it. It's certainly something you'd have to think about.

Sockinchisox

02-28-2010, 03:24 PM

A thought of mine, 99% probably not happening, but what if Rios were to be part of a midseason trade for A-Gon? If Jones is having a decent year, he could take over at center, and since Gonzalez is about to get expensive anyway, maybe we could give a package of Rios (expensive, but a good player unless he repeats 2009, and less expensive that Gonzalez is about to be) and, say, Flowers and/or Viciedo? The get a proven player for less money than A-Gon, plues two high ceiling prospects. This could also work if Kenny decides that Jordan Danks could be ready soon.

I only bring this up because it would clear space to extend Gonzalez.

If the Padres won't be able to afford Gonzalez and got rid of Peavy to shed payroll, how in the world would they be able to take on Rios' contract?

Daver

02-28-2010, 03:30 PM

How about we sign someone like Gonzales as a FA instead of trading every decent young player we have for him.

When your attendance doesn't support a payroll jump, and your organization struggles to develop talent to begin with, it becomes much easier to justify trading prospects.

California Sox

02-28-2010, 04:05 PM

I think the problem is that SD wants to wait until the deadline to trade Gonzalez because they know for sure that Boston will be involved and their prospects are much more attractive than ours. The only question is if Epstein is willing to part with someone decent.

I challenge the premise that Boston's prospects are all that attractive. If they don't include young major leaguers like Buchholz, I don't see how the Padres can make a trade based on minor leaguers. If you go off BA's rankings, #1 is Westmoreland, hasn't played above short season. Kelly hasn't played above lo A and hasn't pitched a full season, Lars Anderson is a huge question mark, so you're looking at a deal based on Reddick or Kalish, are either one of them the centerpiece of a deal?

The advantage the Sox have is that while they may not have the upside of Boston's prospects or the depth, the players they do have are a lot safer. Flowers, Hudson, Danks, and Viciedo are all very close to the majors. In two years, Boston will have an outstanding group, but they are a long way away.

I have a feeling that like Peavy and Halladay, the Padres are going to be disappointed with the package they recieve for Gonzalez. I know if I'm the Sox, there's no way in hell I'd trade Beckham for him.

JermaineDye05

02-28-2010, 04:20 PM

I challenge the premise that Boston's prospects are all that attractive. If they don't include young major leaguers like Buchholz, I don't see how the Padres can make a trade based on minor leaguers. If you go off BA's rankings, #1 is Westmoreland, hasn't played above short season. Kelly hasn't played above lo A and hasn't pitched a full season, Lars Anderson is a huge question mark, so you're looking at a deal based on Reddick or Kalish, are either one of them the centerpiece of a deal?

The advantage the Sox have is that while they may not have the upside of Boston's prospects or the depth, the players they do have are a lot safer. Flowers, Hudson, Danks, and Viciedo are all very close to the majors. In two years, Boston will have an outstanding group, but they are a long way away.

I have a feeling that like Peavy and Halladay, the Padres are going to be disappointed with the package they recieve for Gonzalez. I know if I'm the Sox, there's no way in hell I'd trade Beckham for him.

That's what I meant when I said that the only question was if Epstein was willing to part with someone decent. If he really wants a player like A-Gone, he should just bite the bullet and give the Padres Buccholz. I really don't see why they wouldn't part with him for Halladay. Buccholz hasn't really impressed me when he's been up.

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 04:23 PM

That's what I meant when I said that the only question was if Epstein was willing to part with someone decent. If he really wants a player like A-Gone, he should just bite the bullet and give the Padres Buccholz. I really don't see why they wouldn't part with him for Halladay. Buccholz hasn't really impressed me when he's been up.

Throwing a no-hitter as a rookie is pretty impressive.

stevied23

02-28-2010, 04:25 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=4954247

Would love to get this guy. Maybe now that the Sox have seen what a stand up guy Peavy is, they'll take his advice and pursue him.

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 04:30 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=4954247

Would love to get this guy. Maybe now that the Sox have seen what a stand up guy Peavy is, they'll take his advice and pursue him.

Already a WTS thread about this. These articles on Peavy "advising" Kenny to go after Adrian are silly. Pretty sure Kenny is well aware of the impact Gonzalez would have on any team. If he has to be sold on a player like Gonzalez, he isn't doing his job very well.

JermaineDye05

02-28-2010, 04:36 PM

Throwing a no-hitter as a rookie is pretty impressive.

Yeah, it is but what has he done since then?

I'm not saying he can't be good. I'm just saying, aside from the no-hitter, he hasn't been as good as advertised.

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 04:46 PM

Yeah, it is but what has he done since then?

I'm not saying he can't be good. I'm just saying, aside from the no-hitter, he hasn't been as good as advertised.

He might not have lived up to the hype yet, but he still hasn't had the opportunity to even pitch a full year in the bigs. He played both half of 2008 and 2009 in the minors. The peripherals weren't bad last year, and he has enough talent to improve his numbers. He's still a very valuable commodity at this point.

JermaineDye05

02-28-2010, 04:52 PM

He might not have lived up to the hype yet, but he still hasn't had the opportunity to even pitch a full year in the bigs. He played both half of 2008 and 2009 in the minors. The peripherals weren't bad last year, and he has enough talent to improve his numbers. He's still a very valuable commodity at this point.

I think if the Red Sox really felt that Buccholz was good enough to start for a full season in the majors, then they wouldn't have given $80+ million to John Lackey

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 05:05 PM

I think if the Red Sox really felt that Buccholz was good enough to start for a full season in the majors, then they wouldn't have given $80+ million to John Lackey

Boston needed to solidify the rotation either way. How comfortable would you be with a back 3 of Dice-K (Who has been hiding injuries from the team and only threw 50 innings last year), Tim Wakefield, and Clay Buchholz? That rotation might fly in the AL Central but not the East.

Aside from that if Dice-K bounces back and Wakefield can be average they can flip Clay in the supposed Adrian deal. Pitching depth is never a bad thing.

cards press box

02-28-2010, 05:08 PM

Beckham is staying put. Trading him for what would likely be 1.5 years of Adrian would be a boneheaded move.

Agreed. Gordon Beckham is the face of the Sox franchise. But if the Padres' price for Adrian Gonzalez didn't include Beckham, the Sox would have to consider it, particularly if the Sox could extend Gonzalez.

Pablo_Honey

02-28-2010, 05:16 PM

Agreed. Gordon Beckham is the face of the Sox franchise. But if the Padres' price for Adrian Gonzalez didn't include Beckham, the Sox would have to consider it, particularly if the Sox could extend Gonzalez.
Very doubtful, considering Rios' and Peavy's contracts are huge and young guys will get more money in arbs very soon. Rios' contract looks worse and worse the more I think about it.

soltrain21

02-28-2010, 05:18 PM

Agreed. Gordon Beckham is the face of the Sox franchise. But if the Padres' price for Adrian Gonzalez didn't include Beckham, the Sox would have to consider it, particularly if the Sox could extend Gonzalez.

Um. Since when?

russ99

02-28-2010, 05:20 PM

Very doubtful, considering Rios' and Peavy's contracts are huge and young guys will get more money in arbs very soon. Rios' contract looks worse and worse the more I think about it.

Why? Konerko's off the books next offseason, and we have a 3 year window to go for it with Peavy as our ace.

If Rios puts up an average to above average season for him, then he'll be right in his pay range and we've needed a player like him for 4 years.

Pablo_Honey

02-28-2010, 05:29 PM

Why? Konerko's off the books next offseason, and we have a 3 year window to go for it with Peavy as our ace.

If Rios puts up an average to above average season for him, then he'll be right in his pay range and we've needed a player like him for 4 years.
Konerko's contract is only 12 mil and like someone else mentioned before, that will only be good enough to cover the arbitration money for Carlos, Bacon and Danks. Some contracts we have are also backloaded so the payroll will gradually increase even without A-Gon.

Some of those comments at the end of the article are hilarious. "OMG Peavy is throwing the Sox under the boss! He's such a jerk!"

Ridiculous.

Rohan

02-28-2010, 05:43 PM

Some of those comments at the end of the article are hilarious. "OMG Peavy is throwing the Sox under the boss! He's such a jerk!"

Ridiculous.

And that's exactly why I read/post here at WSI and not the commentary of some 12 year old on WGN's sports site or the MLB forums.

Boondock Saint

02-28-2010, 05:44 PM

And that's exactly why I read/post here at WSI and not the commentary of some 12 year old on WGN's sports site or the MLB forums.

We have a winner.

Rohan

02-28-2010, 05:47 PM

Are not the Padres in a dire financial position in which they need to get rid of Gonzalez anyway?

Why are they trying to rob the cradle when they're just barely staying out of the grave :?:.

oeo

02-28-2010, 06:00 PM

Are not the Padres in a dire financial position in which they need to get rid of Gonzalez anyway?

Why are they trying to rob the cradle when they're just barely staying out of the grave :?:.

They don't need to get rid of him right now. They have a year and a half to do it. If they don't do it by July 31, 2011 all they're going to get is compensation picks.

Pablo_Honey

02-28-2010, 06:02 PM

Are not the Padres in a dire financial position in which they need to get rid of Gonzalez anyway?

Why are they trying to rob the cradle when they're just barely staying out of the grave :?:.
...except A-Gon is signed very cheaply for 2 seasons so there is no rush. They can easily trade him for prospects any time from now. The only financial issue with A-Gon is contract extension. Peavy was a different story because he is averaging $17 mil per season for 3 seasons, and he was getting paid $8 mil last season. There was a need to move his contract ASAP.

DumpJerry

02-28-2010, 06:02 PM

They don't need to get rid of him right now. They have a year and a half to do it. If they don't do it by July 31, 2011 all they're going to get is compensation picks.
Only if they offer arbitration and he turns it down. If he accepts, they are on the hook for goobers of millions of dollars....

oeo

02-28-2010, 06:04 PM

Only if they offer arbitration and he turns it down. If he accepts, they are on the hook for goobers of millions of dollars....

Somebody is going to pay this guy.

Brian26

02-28-2010, 07:11 PM

And that's exactly why I read/post here at WSI and not the commentary of some 12 year old on WGN's sports site or the MLB forums.

We have a winner.

It's amazing how well a forum can be run when people are held accountable for what they say. The comments sections on the Trib and Sun-Times sites are also completely worthless.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-28-2010, 08:05 PM

It's amazing how well a forum can be run when people are held accountable for what they say. The comments sections on the Trib and Sun-Times sites are also completely worthless.What's the difference here? :scratch:
haha. kidding...

cws05champ

02-28-2010, 08:08 PM

Konerko's contract is only 12 mil and like someone else mentioned before, that will only be good enough to cover the arbitration money for Carlos, Bacon and Danks. Some contracts we have are also backloaded so the payroll will gradually increase even without A-Gon.

Beckham won't be eligible for arbitration next year. Quentin and Danks will probably get about $7M total raises next year and the back loaded contracts will account for another $6M or so(considering Dye/MacDougal buyouts($1.2) come off the books). So Konerko (12), AJP (6.25), and possibly Jenks not returning (7.2) as his salary would probably go up over $10M.

$13M in raises and possibly $25M coming off the books with a need to replace 1B , C and a whole lot of leadership.

WhiteSoxFan84

02-28-2010, 08:15 PM

My two cents (in 6 points):

This thread could be renamed, "Peavy Wants To Win", because that's what acquiring A-Gon would help us do.
Gonzalez >>>> Beckham.
Gonzalez, proven.
Beckham, doesn't even have 1 full season under his wings.
I love Bacon, don't get me wrong, but Gonzalez is doing what he's doing (averaged 35 HRs, 106 RBIs, .893 OPS the last 3 seasons) in a huge pitcher's park on average to bad teams.
I'd include Bacon in a package for A-Gon as long as he is the only ML player taken off our roster AND no more than 1 other major prospect (Jor. Danks, Flowers, Mitchell, Hudson, etc.) are in the package.
Think about this for the years to come:
Rotation (1-4): Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd
Position Players: Gonzalez 1B, Ramirez SS, Teahen 3B, Flowers C (unless he's part of the deal), Quentin OF, and Rios OF.

Life wouldn't be bad at all for us White Sox fans. :gulp:

LoveYourSuit

02-28-2010, 08:24 PM

My two cents (in 6 points):

This thread could be renamed, "Peavy Wants To Win", because that's what acquiring A-Gon would help us do.
Gonzalez >>>> Beckham.
Gonzalez, proven.
Beckham, doesn't even have 1 full season under his wings.
I love Bacon, don't get me wrong, but Gonzalez is doing what he's doing (averaged 35 HRs, 106 RBIs, .893 OPS the last 3 seasons) in a huge pitcher's park on average to bad teams.
I'd include Bacon in a package for A-Gon as long as he is the only ML player taken off our roster AND no more than 1 other major prospect (Jor. Danks, Flowers, Mitchell, Hudson, etc.) are in the package.
Think about this for the years to come:
Rotation (1-4): Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd
Position Players: Gonzalez 1B, Ramirez SS, Teahen 3B, Flowers C (unless he's part of the deal), Quentin OF, and Rios OF.

Life wouldn't be bad at all for us White Sox fans. :gulp:

I have to agree with you on Gonzalez >>>>>> Beckham in terms of today and winning a championship today. Same reason why I would do it too.

Gonzalez is the real deal and at the Cell he will hit 50 HRs.

thomas35forever

02-28-2010, 08:36 PM

I have to agree with you on Gonzalez >>>>>> Beckham in terms of today and winning a championship today. Same reason why I would do it too.

Gonzalez is the real deal and at the Cell he will hit 50 HRs.
If we trade away Beckham now however, I know he'll make us pay for it. I'm not willing to part with him so soon. And 50 home runs? Please. Those days in the Majors have passed. I want Gonzalez but if the price is too high, forget it. Look at how many players we had to give up for Peavy.

JB98

02-28-2010, 08:39 PM

Even though I would like Gonzalez on the Sox (who wouldn't?), I would not trade Beckham for him.

I think top-notch middle infielders are harder to find than first basemen. I think Beckham might develop into a perennial all-star in the middle infield.

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 08:41 PM

I have to agree with you on Gonzalez >>>>>> Beckham in terms of today and winning a championship today. Same reason why I would do it too.

Gonzalez is the real deal and at the Cell he will hit 50 HRs.

How does opening a gaping hole in the middle infield bring us significantly closer to a championship today? One of Nix/Vizquel/Lillibridge would be your everyday starter(s).

Keeping Gordon and trading prospects for a Dunn/Crawford/Fielder negates the DH hole without creating any others. Even though they might be rentals, there is also the possibility of nabbing one of those players off the free agent market next offseason. Seems like a no brainer to me.

102605

02-28-2010, 08:46 PM

I don't think I would give up Beckham because of the business aspect of it. He is locked up for a cheap amount for xx years still vs. having to pay Adrian BIG money in another year.

I would however give up the entire rest of the White Sox minor league system for Adrian.

It would be so awesome for me if the White Sox made another HUGE Padres deal. I follow the Padres too and all these White Sox x players makes it more fun!

LoveYourSuit

02-28-2010, 09:08 PM

How does opening a gaping hole in the middle infield bring us significantly closer to a championship today? One of Nix/Vizquel/Lillibridge would be your everyday starter(s).

Keeping Gordon and trading prospects for a Dunn/Crawford/Fielder negates the DH hole without creating any others. Even though they might be rentals, there is also the possibility of nabbing one of those players off the free agent market next offseason. Seems like a no brainer to me.

My question to you and everyone is how are we 100% certain that Beckham is this perenial all-star middle infielder everyone is willing to bet the house on? The guy has played ZERO games at this level as middle IF. Who is to say that his defense is not going to suck there? If his defense ends up being just about average, then he becomes just another guy.

jabrch

02-28-2010, 09:08 PM

If we trade away Beckham now however, I know he'll make us pay for it. I'm not willing to part with him so soon. And 50 home runs? Please. Those days in the Majors have passed. I want Gonzalez but if the price is too high, forget it. Look at how many players we had to give up for Peavy.

Id give up the same sort of package for Gonzalez that we did for Peavy. But Beckham likely wouldn't be available in a deal.

HBaines03

02-28-2010, 09:17 PM

Trust me, I'd love A Gonzalez as much as anyone, but not at the expense of Beckham. My opinion is look at where we are locked in at. We have Rios and if Quentin produces well this year than try to wrap him up for a few years. This opens up Jordan Danks and even Mitchell. I know people won't like that but Mitchell is very green and high on lists right now. I think you have to add Hudson and Flowers. Resign AJ and hold onto your core pitchers. This has to be under the pretense of getting AGon on an extension. If you can't do that and you really feel the prospects are solid players than you can't give them up for 1 1/2 years of service.

JB98

02-28-2010, 09:27 PM

My question to you and everyone is how are we 100% certain that Beckham is this perenial all-star middle infielder everyone is willing to bet the house on? The guy has played ZERO games at this level as middle IF. Who is to say that his defense is not going to suck there? If his defense ends up being just about average, then he becomes just another guy.

There is no 100 percent certainty in anything. Adrian Gonzalez could get traded to an American League team and fall off the map.

There's risk in any potential move.

DirtySox

02-28-2010, 09:28 PM

My question to you and everyone is how are we 100% certain that Beckham is this perenial all-star middle infielder everyone is willing to bet the house on? The guy has played ZERO games at this level as middle IF. Who is to say that his defense is not going to suck there? If his defense ends up being just about average, then he becomes just another guy.

An average defender in the middle infield who will likely put up 15 to 25 HRs yearly while maintaining a relatively high batting average with plenty of doubles is still mighty valuable.

I'm still waiting to hear how creating one big hole to fill another big hole makes us more likely to reach the World Series.

Hitmen77

02-28-2010, 09:30 PM

Tragg:

When the Sox start drawing three million a season then you'll get your wish with type-A, top players.

Until then.......the key word is "creative!"

Lip

The 3 million mark is tough to crack with the Cell's current seating configuration that has the Sox draw only about 39,000 on sellout games. Even in 2006 they fell short of that mark.

That only works for teams like the Cubs who sell tickets tourists and the drinking crowd no matter what or teams that can pack more people in their park during the higher-demand games.

(.....and that's not meant as a knock on our attendance).

DSpivack

02-28-2010, 10:20 PM

The 3 million mark is tough to crack with the Cell's current seating configuration that has the Sox draw only about 39,000 on sellout games. Even in 2006 they fell short of that mark.

That only works for teams like the Cubs who sell tickets tourists and the drinking crowd no matter what or teams that can pack more people in their park during the higher-demand games.

(.....and that's not meant as a knock on our attendance).

3 million would be about 36,500 fans per game, FWIW.

mzh

02-28-2010, 10:32 PM

3 million would be about 36,500 fans per game, FWIW.
Even if ticket sale are as good as they supposedly have bee, 36.5K per seems pretty hard to do when at the height of our season last (being tied for first after the perfecto) we drew slightly over 27K IIRC, and we couldn't even do it in 06 in the post championship craze

#1swisher

02-28-2010, 10:51 PM

AGone says, to Peav,"hes got to swing the bat", in this article by Merkin.

How does opening a gaping hole in the middle infield bring us significantly closer to a championship today? One of Nix/Vizquel/Lillibridge would be your everyday starter(s).

Keeping Gordon and trading prospects for a Dunn/Crawford/Fielder negates the DH hole without creating any others. Even though they might be rentals, there is also the possibility of nabbing one of those players off the free agent market next offseason. Seems like a no brainer to me.

You seem pretty confident in Beckham's abilities at second base, how many ML games has he played at the position in his career? 0.

I'm not saying he will fail, by all means I hope he wins a frickin' Gold Glove there, but some of you guys are way too in love with this kid.

I can't believe some of you need convincing to be ok with letting Bacon go for Adrian Gonzalez, Adrian flippin' Gonzalez!

If we trade away Beckham now however, I know he'll make us pay for it. I'm not willing to part with him so soon. And 50 home runs? Please. Those days in the Majors have passed. I want Gonzalez but if the price is too high, forget it. Look at how many players we had to give up for Peavy.

How? By being the best player on a cellar dweller in a different league than us?

Who cares if he succeeds? I hope he does! He's a good kid with a lot of talent. BUT, A-Gon is a sure thing at the plate, on the field, and in the clubhouse.

A classic no brainer.

WhiteSoxFan84

03-01-2010, 01:11 AM

Something to add-on to this topic:

This is an old link (http://www.scoresreport.com/2009/11/17/white-sox-interested-in-adrian-gonzalez/) (from 11/17/09) and it talks about the rumored 3-way between the Sox, Padres, and Angels earlier in the offseason. But the main part I wanted to bring up is this one:

the Padres would be seeking four top-notch prospects at pitcher, center field, catcher and second base for a player of Gonzalez’s caliber.

The Sox have touted pitcher Daniel Hudson, outfielder Jordan Danks and catcher Tyler Flowers as core players of their future. All three players could make the Sox’s 2010 opening-day roster, but trading all three would be a significant hit to the Sox’s development unless other young players accelerate their progress.

I sure as heck would NOT do Jor. Danks, Flowers, Hudson, AND Beckham for Gonzalez. No way. But I definitely would do Bacon and 1 of the other 3 (plus a 2-3 lesser "valued" prospects) OR the other 3 plus 1-2 lesser "valued" prospects.

VMSNS

03-01-2010, 01:50 AM

You seem pretty confident in Beckham's abilities at second base, how many ML games has he played at the position in his career? 0.

I'm not saying he will fail, by all means I hope he wins a frickin' Gold Glove there, but some of you guys are way too in love with this kid.

I can't believe some of you need convincing to be ok with letting Bacon go for Adrian Gonzalez, Adrian flippin' Gonzalez!

Gordon is 22 years old (or is he 23?), has virtually unlimited potential, and is signed for cheap the next few years. In two or three years time, Gordon could be consistently batting .300 with 100+ RBIs and 25-30 HR.

In 2 years, Adrian will be having a payday. A BIG payday. And most likely, the Sox won't have the funds to compete for him in FA. Sure, he'll give you consistent production and is still pretty young, but to trade Beckham for 1.5 seasons of Gonzalez just isn't smart, especially considering the situation long-term. Now, if we could lock down AGon long-term, then I'd at least entertain the idea of moving Beckham. But as it is, Beckham stays right here.

As for what I'd give up for 1.5 seasons of AGon...probably the entire farm minus Hudson and Beckham. We desperately need someone like him on this team.

WhiteSoxFan84

03-01-2010, 02:01 AM

Gordon is 22 years old (or is he 23?), has virtually unlimited potential, and is signed for cheap the next few years. In two or three years time, Gordon could be consistently batting .300 with 100+ RBIs and 25-30 HR.

In 2 years, Adrian will be having a payday. A BIG payday. And most likely, the Sox won't have the funds to compete for him in FA. Sure, he'll give you consistent production and is still pretty young, but to trade Beckham for 1.5 seasons of Gonzalez just isn't smart, especially considering the situation long-term. Now, if we could lock down AGon long-term, then I'd at least entertain the idea of moving Beckham. But as it is, Beckham stays right here.

As for what I'd give up for 1.5 seasons of AGon...probably the entire farm minus Hudson and Beckham. We desperately need someone like him on this team.

Just to clarify, everything I'm saying is meant to be taken with the assumption that A-Gon would be locked up for at least 5 years after he is acquired. I think Kenny, with the recent acquisitions of Rios and Peavy as proof, is done with the 1-year rentals.

doublem23

03-01-2010, 06:16 AM

Jeez, now I hope we don't get Gonzalez just so I don't have to see that ridiculously ****ty nickname.

cws05champ

03-01-2010, 07:59 AM

I think this trading of Beckham is a ridiculous argument. If you want to give up Hudson, Viciedo, Flowers or Danks I'm on board but trading Beckham from our ML roster does not help us that much this year. If you just look at 1B and 2B at who we would have there independently with Beckham being traded(with just my combined estimates):

Konerko/Beckham .275, 45HR, 175 RBI
Gonzalez/Nix .255, 53HR, 165 RBI

I know Konerko would go to DH but the numbers he has put up is what we are hoping from our current DH rotation (25HR, 75+ RBI) anyway. Like I said if you are adding Adrian WITH Beckham in the lineup, it's a no brainer....if you are subtracting Beckham it is not worth it.

Secondly, like I had said earlier, Gonzalez will only be a "Bargain" this year as his 2011 is a club option. If he were traded and extended I'm willing to bet that the 2011 option would be torn up in favor of a high $ extension including that year. With our salary for next year we would have to let Konerko, AJ, Jenks all go. Konerko would not be a big deal, but then you are relying on Flowers with a veteran pitching staff and moving Thornton (who will be in the last year of his bargain deal) to be the closer.

spawn

03-01-2010, 08:11 AM

Beckham isn't going anywhere. His impact on this franchise is being felt on the field and off. He's being groomed as the face of this franchise for the future. It's why he was calling season ticket holders and even delivering season tickets. You don't do that and then trade him. As far as him not being a proven second baseman...so what? You're still creating a hole in the middle of the infield offensively and defensively. I think I'd rather have Konerko/Beckham at 1st and second than Gonzalez/Nix.

DirtySox

03-01-2010, 10:20 AM

Beckham is controlled by the team for about 6 more years at well below his market value. He is being paid significantly less than he should be for what he produces. Gonzalez will likely be under team control for 1.5 years at below his market value. He will then no doubt sign a contract that will assuredly be equal or greater than the value of his production. 7 years 18-20 million per year is a rough estimate.

It's possible and very likely that Beckham and Gonzalez's production will be the same value on the field the next few years especially considering position. 2 wins is probably the peak difference in trading one for the other, and that is if Beckham slumps into a down year. Fangraphs and CHONE predictions see about a .5 game difference in value for Adrian in 2010. Even if you want to discount that, straight up the deal doesn't make any sense. The White Sox would be trading value for similar value for the right to pay more for it over less time.

TheOldRoman

03-01-2010, 10:42 AM

Beckham is controlled by the team for about 6 more years at well below his market value. He is being paid significantly less than he should be for what he produces. Gonzalez will likely be under team control for 1.5 years at below his market value. He will then no doubt sign a contract that will assuredly be equal or greater than the value of his production. 7 years 18-20 million per year is a rough estimate.

It's possible and very likely that Beckham and Gonzalez's production will be the same value on the field the next few years especially considering position. Very good post up to this point...

2 wins is probably the peak difference in trading one for the other, and that is if Beckham slumps into a down year. Fangraphs and CHONE predictions see about a .5 game difference in value for Adrian in 2010. ...But this is irrelevant and nonsensical.

DirtySox

03-01-2010, 10:43 AM

Very good post up to this point...

...But this is irrelevant and nonsensical.

To each his own.

Pablo_Honey

03-01-2010, 10:45 AM

I can't believe some of you need convincing to be ok with letting Bacon go for Adrian Gonzalez, Adrian flippin' Gonzalez!
Right now, I think the offense is balanced in terms of weight of power production, so here's a grossly simplified example:
GB: 15%, CQ: 20%, PK: 15%, AR($): 15%, AR: 15%, MT: 10%, DH: 10%
This is possible because everyone is sort of on the similar level in terms of their power with the exception of Quentin.

Remove Beckham and bring in Gonzalez:
AG: 40%, CQ: 15%, PK: 15%, AR($): 10%, AR: 10%, MT: 5%, DH: 5%
See how unbalanced that becomes? If Gonzalez struggles, we are seriously screwed. Of course, you could say Gonzalez takes up more weight on power production because he hits so many more homeruns than Beckham but it doesn't change the fact that we would have no MLB second baseman and would overdepend on Gonzalez.

Now, with Becks and Gonzalez:
GB: 10%, AG: 30%, CQ: 15%, PK: 15%, The Rest: Same as above
Still, emphasis is put on Gonzalez but there is less dependency on him AND we still have an MLB second baseman who can potentially hit 20-30+ homeruns.

I do realize my examples are gross simplifications and probably heavily biased but that's why it's an opinion of mine, but my point still stands: Trading Beckham for Gonzalez is a stupid idea unless something is wrong with Beckham, Gonzalez agrees to a cheap extension and we can find a suitable replacement at 2B.

Hitmen77

03-01-2010, 11:38 AM

3 million would be about 36,500 fans per game, FWIW.

It's tough to sustain that average through those early season games when the weather is bad, school is in session, etc.

But the Sox current payroll level should be good enough to put together a pennant contender. The problem is that it's not combined with much success in developing our own talent. Unless you're one of the top spenders like the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs, you can't just try to all your holes with FAs and trades for established impact players. That's the problem with trading Beckham for Gonzalez. You'll have to pay big-time to keep Gonzalez and then you'll have to shell out more to fill that hole you just created in the middle infield.

....and even top spenders like the Red Sox rely on home grown talent for their lineup.

voodoochile

03-01-2010, 11:42 AM

Right now, I think the offense is balanced in terms of weight of power production, so here's a grossly simplified example:
GB: 15%, CQ: 20%, PK: 15%, AR($): 15%, AR: 15%, MT: 10%, DH: 10%
This is possible because everyone is sort of on the similar level in terms of their power with the exception of Quentin.

Remove Beckham and bring in Gonzalez:
AG: 40%, CQ: 15%, PK: 15%, AR($): 10%, AR: 10%, MT: 5%, DH: 5%
See how unbalanced that becomes? If Gonzalez struggles, we are seriously screwed. Of course, you could say Gonzalez takes up more weight on power production because he hits so many more homeruns than Beckham but it doesn't change the fact that we would have no MLB second baseman and would overdepend on Gonzalez.

Now, with Becks and Gonzalez:
GB: 10%, AG: 30%, CQ: 15%, PK: 15%, The Rest: Same as above
Still, emphasis is put on Gonzalez but there is less dependency on him AND we still have an MLB second baseman who can potentially hit 20-30+ homeruns.

I do realize my examples are gross simplifications and probably heavily biased but that's why it's an opinion of mine, but my point still stands: Trading Beckham for Gonzalez is a stupid idea unless something is wrong with Beckham, Gonzalez agrees to a cheap extension and we can find a suitable replacement at 2B.

Replace the name Gonzalez with the name Pujols and all your stats stay the same, but if someone suggested the Sox could trade Beckham for Pujols, I doubt anyone on this board would do anything but celebrate. Well, there would be a few who would freak out, but hey, it's WSI...:tongue:

mzh

03-01-2010, 12:06 PM

Fangraphs and CHONE predictions see about a .5 game difference in value for Adrian in 2010. Even if you want to discount that, straight up the deal doesn't make any sense. The White Sox would be trading value for similar value for the right to pay more for it over less time.
CHONE also projected Peavy to go 8-8 with a 3.91 ERA, and Dayan Viciedo to play 122 games. Totally ridiculous and unreliable.

JermaineDye05

03-01-2010, 12:09 PM

Replace the name Gonzalez with the name Pujols and all your stats stay the same, but if someone suggested the Sox could trade Beckham for Pujols, I doubt anyone on this board would do anything but celebrate. Well, there would be a few who would freak out, but hey, it's WSI...:tongue:

They're similar but Pujols will consistently hit around .330 for you each season as well as SLG around .600+ with an OPS over 1.0.

Adrian Gonzalez is a great player

but Albert Pujols is a whole different species.

He is the Alpha slugger if you will.

DirtySox

03-01-2010, 12:12 PM

CHONE also projected Peavy to go 8-8 with a 3.91 ERA, and Dayan Viciedo to play 122 games. Totally ridiculous and unreliable.

I wouldn't be surprised if Peavy ends with an ERA in the high 3's. I don't expect it to happen, but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibilities. He ultimately has moved from an NL pitcher's park to an AL hitter's park. Please don't feed me his performances from such a small sample size at the end of last season either. I like Peavy tons, but that prediction isn't ridiculous at all.

JermaineDye05

03-01-2010, 12:23 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if Peavy ends with an ERA in the high 3's. I don't expect it to happen, but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibilities. He ultimately has moved from an NL pitcher's park to an AL hitter's park. Please don't feed me his performances from such a small sample size at the end of last season either. I like Peavy tons, but that prediction isn't ridiculous at all.

I think what's ridiculous about it is the W-L total.

I'm not worried at all about Jake's transition from the NL to the AL. Sure, he'll probably give up more HR, but I think he'll be a solid ace. He has the stuff and the composure. Some people act as if pitchers coming from the NL are minor leaguers stepping into the majors for the first time. If you have the right make-up though, you'll be fine. See Josh Beckett as one prime example.

DirtySox

03-01-2010, 12:26 PM

I think what's ridiculous about it is the W-L total.

I'm not worried at all about Jake's transition from the NL to the AL. Sure, he'll probably give up more HR, but I think he'll be a solid ace. He has the stuff and the composure. Some people act as if pitchers coming from the NL are minor leaguers stepping into the majors for the first time. If you have the right make-up though, you'll be fine. See Josh Beckett as one prime example.

That W - L total is significantly affected by the team's offensive production, which is huge point of contention right now. I think that prediction is more likely to come true than a 3.91 ERA. (Barring an offensive addition at some point) Peavy might end up as our 2008 John Danks, and that would make me very sad.

Pablo_Honey

03-01-2010, 12:30 PM

Replace the name Gonzalez with the name Pujols and all your stats stay the same, but if someone suggested the Sox could trade Beckham for Pujols, I doubt anyone on this board would do anything but celebrate. Well, there would be a few who would freak out, but hey, it's WSI...:tongue:
I wouldn't give up Beckham for Pujols either mainly because I prefer young, cheap players. It's a tempting trade proposal though.

See Josh Beckett as one prime example.
Beckett's first full season in AL says hi. I really hope and I really don't think Peavy will suck but there is a chance Peavy might need time to adjust to AL like Beckett did.

mzh

03-01-2010, 12:33 PM

I think what's ridiculous about it is the W-L total.

I'm not worried at all about Jake's transition from the NL to the AL. Sure, he'll probably give up more HR, but I think he'll be a solid ace. He has the stuff and the composure. Some people act as if pitchers coming from the NL are minor leaguers stepping into the majors for the first time. If you have the right make-up though, you'll be fine. See Josh Beckett as one prime example.
+1
An ace is an ace wherever he plays. the difference in league's isn't enough to turn a cy-young winner into a #4 starter (see Peavy, Beckett) or turn a pretty good pitcher into a league dominator (see Barry Zito). If Lincecum or Clayton Kershaw came to the AL, they wouldn't suddenly be that less effective. Peavy is two years removed from winning the triple crown, he can easily be as good as Lincecum or Kershaw.

Gammons Peter

03-01-2010, 12:33 PM

What's the deal with all of the talk about only getting AG for 1.5 years.

He's not going to walk at the allstar break.

mzh

03-01-2010, 12:34 PM

Beckett's first full season in AL says hi. I really hope and I really don't think Peavy will suck but there is a chance Peavy might need time to adjust to AL like Beckett did.
I don't think it's much of a question that Peavy is better than Beckett either way.

mzh

03-01-2010, 12:35 PM

What's the deal with all of the talk about only getting AG for 1.5 years.

He's not going to walk at the allstar break.
Because there's a good chance he'll be a deadline deal.

DirtySox

03-01-2010, 12:36 PM

What's the deal with all of the talk about only getting AG for 1.5 years.

He's not going to walk at the allstar break.

What? The .5 part is the assumption that he will be moved by San Diego near the all-star break constituting a half season this year, and the final year of his contract in 2011.

.5 + 1 = 1.5

JermaineDye05

03-01-2010, 12:36 PM

I wouldn't give up Beckham for Pujols either mainly because I prefer young, cheap players. It's a tempting trade proposal though.

Beckett's first full season in AL says hi. I really hope and I really don't think Peavy will suck but there is a chance Peavy might need time to adjust to AL like Beckett did.

Josh Beckett didn't have a Cy Young or an ERA under 3 in 4 of the last 6 seasons when he arrived.

Gammons Peter

03-01-2010, 12:38 PM

Because there's a good chance he'll be a deadline deal.

thanks,............. but I want him now

Gammons Peter

03-01-2010, 12:41 PM

What? The .5 part is the assumption that he will be moved by San Diego near the all-star break constituting a half season this year, and the final year of his contract in 2011.

.5 + 1 = 1.5

yes, but if they trade him next week....
1+1=2

Pablo_Honey

03-01-2010, 12:41 PM

What's the deal with all of the talk about only getting AG for 1.5 years.

He's not going to walk at the allstar break.
In case you haven't noticed, we are all assuming Pads will move A-Gon at the trade deadline of 2010 so we have him only for half a season in 10 then a full season in 11.

I don't think it's much of a question that Peavy is better than Beckett either way.
They are similar in that they both have a history of injury, know how to punch guys out, pitched brilliantly for NL bottom dwellers with pitcher-friendly park and then got traded to contending teams in AL with hitter-friendly parks. I agree Peavy is way better than Beckett but I'm just saying there is a slight chance he might struggle based on Beckett. Trust me, I believe Peavy will curb-stomp AL but I also can't shake off this nasty feeling that we might be hoping a bit too much in him.

LoveYourSuit

03-01-2010, 12:54 PM

I wouldn't give up Beckham for Pujols either mainly because I prefer young, cheap players. It's a tempting trade proposal though.

.

This has got to go down as the Post of the Year.

Pablo_Honey

03-01-2010, 12:57 PM

Josh Beckett didn't have a Cy Young or an ERA under 3 in 4 of the last 6 seasons when he arrived.
Well you did mention Beckett had the right makeup to find success in AL. I remembered his first full season being pretty ugly so I suggested that there is a probability of Peavy struggling in his first season. It took Beckett one season to figure it out. It may take Peavy less considering he is a better pitcher but I think Peavy did pitch in more favourable conditions than Beckett.

mzh

03-01-2010, 12:58 PM

In case you haven't noticed, we are all assuming Pads will move A-Gon at the trade deadline of 2010 so we have him only for half a season in 10 then a full season in 11.

They are similar in that they both have a history of injury, know how to punch guys out, pitched brilliantly for NL bottom dwellers with pitcher-friendly park and then got traded to contending teams in AL with hitter-friendly parks. I agree Peavy is way better than Beckett but I'm just saying there is a slight chance he might struggle based on Beckett. Trust me, I believe Peavy will curb-stomp AL but I also can't shake off this nasty feeling that we might be hoping a bit too much in him.
I see what you mean when you say Peavy pitched brilliantly, but Beckett?
in 5 seasons in the NL, Peavy averaged 12-8, had a 2.90 ERA, and averaged 195 IP (mostly due to injury). Beckett, in 3 2/3 in a comparable pitchers park, averaged 11-9 with 160 IP, and had a 3.53 ERA. I see a difference.

I think there is a chance Peavy will struggle, but if he puts up an ERA of 5.01 I'll eat my sox hat.

Pablo_Honey

03-01-2010, 01:10 PM

I see what you mean when you say Peavy pitched brilliantly, but Beckett?
in 5 seasons in the NL, Peavy averaged 12-8, had a 2.90 ERA, and averaged 195 IP (mostly due to injury). Beckett, in 3 2/3 in a comparable pitchers park, averaged 11-9 with 160 IP, and had a 3.53 ERA. I see a difference.
As usual, I got myself mixed up while typing that. I probably thought Beckett pitched well based on his playoff performances (which really were brilliant given his age and experience btw). Still, posting a 3.53 average ERA before the age of 26 is impressive on its own. But yeah Peavy is on a hole naba lebel. Can't believe we actually landed this guy with 2 average prospects, 1 project and 1 bust.

I think there is a chance Peavy will struggle, but if he puts up an ERA of 5.01 I'll eat my sox hat.
Oh, gosh, no. An ERA of 5.01, now THAT is something I don't see ever happening. Worst case scenario, 4.50-ish ERA for Peavy. If it's anything close to 5.01, I'll eat my Sox hat as well as my Buehrle replica jersey.

mzh

03-01-2010, 02:06 PM

Oh, gosh, no. An ERA of 5.01, now THAT is something I don't see ever happening. Worst case scenario, 4.50-ish ERA for Peavy. If it's anything close to 5.01, I'll eat my Sox hat as well as my Buehrle replica jersey.
5.01 was Beckett's first year in Boston. I have a feeling Peavy will do very well, however. I think facing new hitters who haven't seen him before will have a much bigger impact than the AL being more of a hitters league.

voodoochile

03-01-2010, 03:17 PM

They're similar but Pujols will consistently hit around .330 for you each season as well as SLG around .600+ with an OPS over 1.0.

Adrian Gonzalez is a great player

but Albert Pujols is a whole different species.

He is the Alpha slugger if you will.

Yes and he'd skew the "balance" in the lineup even more... That was what I was responding to. Balance is overrated, get players who can hit and let the chips fall where they may...

Pablo_Honey

03-01-2010, 03:53 PM

Yes and he'd skew the "balance" in the lineup even more... That was what I was responding to. Balance is overrated, get players who can hit and let the chips fall where they may...
The reason I brought up balance was because somebody mentioned Beckham for Gonzalez was a no-brainer, which really is not the case. Having Beckham's bat takes pressure off of Gonzalez and Beckham will add onto offensive punch. I'm not saying a straight up Beckham-Gonzalez swap will kill the offense because no, frankly, it will be better. But when you lose Beckham to gain Gonzalez, the net gain is not drastic enough to justify losing Beckham. Also, now we got a vacancy at 2B which would have to be addressed internally (just bad talent in general) or externally (money money money). Either way you look at this, you rely more on Gonzalez because you now have a weaker bat at 2B. On the other hand, I'm willing to sacrifice Hudson and Flowers because they can be replaced at the moment.

voodoochile

03-01-2010, 03:57 PM

The reason I brought up balance was because somebody mentioned Beckham for Gonzalez was a no-brainer, which really is not the case. Having Beckham's bat takes pressure off of Gonzalez and Beckham will add onto offensive punch. I'm not saying a straight up Beckham-Gonzalez swap will kill the offense because no, frankly, it will be better. But when you lose Beckham to gain Gonzalez, the net gain is not drastic enough to justify losing Beckham. Also, now we got a vacancy at 2B which would have to be addressed internally (just bad talent in general) or externally (money money money). Either way you look at this, you rely more on Gonzalez because you now have a weaker bat at 2B. On the other hand, I'm willing to sacrifice Hudson and Flowers because they can be replaced at the moment.

I agree that the net gain from AGon over Beckham is less than for prospects. I would still consider doing it if it was heads up.

A. Cavatica

03-01-2010, 07:40 PM

I think Beckham's trade value may actually be higher than Gonzalez's.

He's much younger, much cheaper, is locked up for much longer, and he plays a more difficult defensive position. And he projects to be a middle-of-the-order hitter.

Who are the Padres prepared to throw in?

Brian26

03-01-2010, 08:07 PM

I'd love to see Gonzalez in a Sox uniform.

With that said, in terms of precedent, can anyone think of one example in the history of major league baseball when a franchise has traded its two top stars, in two separate trades within the span of one year, to the same team?

To put this in perspective, this would be the equivalent of the Sox trading the Padres LaMarr Hoyt after the '84 season and then coming back and trading them Carlton Fisk after the '85 season.

I can't see the Padres doing this from a public relations standpoint.

spawn

03-01-2010, 08:13 PM

I'd love to see Gonzalez in a Sox uniform.

With that said, in terms of precedent, can anyone think of one example in the history of major league baseball when a franchise has traded its two top stars, in two separate trades within the span of one year, to the same team?

To put this in perspective, this would be the equivalent of the Sox trading the Padres LaMarr Hoyt after the '84 season and then coming back and trading them Carlton Fisk after the '85 season.

I can't see the Padres doing this from a public relations standpoint.
I was listening to The Score and they interviewd the Padres broadcaster (Andy Mazur). He basically said the same thing: Gonzalez is now going to be the face of the franchise, and he'd be surprised if Gonzalez was traded.

WhiteSoxFan84

03-01-2010, 09:23 PM

The reason I brought up balance was because somebody mentioned Beckham for Gonzalez was a no-brainer, which really is not the case. Having Beckham's bat takes pressure off of Gonzalez and Beckham will add onto offensive punch. I'm not saying a straight up Beckham-Gonzalez swap will kill the offense because no, frankly, it will be better. But when you lose Beckham to gain Gonzalez, the net gain is not drastic enough to justify losing Beckham. Also, now we got a vacancy at 2B which would have to be addressed internally (just bad talent in general) or externally (money money money). Either way you look at this, you rely more on Gonzalez because you now have a weaker bat at 2B. On the other hand, I'm willing to sacrifice Hudson and Flowers because they can be replaced at the moment.

Sooo... let me get this straight. A lineup with Gonzalez in it is worse than a lineup with Beckham in it? Can you show me a balance of the Padres' lineup last season? I'm guessing AG had 75% of the weight on his shoulders and he still kicked ass.

This is a ridiculous argument. The ONLY "opinions" I see as reasonable are those stating they'd rather keep Bacon because of the economics. Everything else is flawed, wrong, unreasonable, and garbage.

We are also neglecting to realize that an acquisition of Gonzalez means the potential, simultaneous trading of Paul Konerko. We can also easily pick up a defensive specialist at 2nd who can hit just well enough to stay in the lineup (maybe even getting Julio Lugo from the Cardinals to move to 2B now that they have Felipe Lopez). We can live with an offensive weakness or 2 when you have a 3-7 consisting of Gonzalez-Quentin-AJ-Ramirez-Rios.

Gonzalez would make this lineup, team, franchise, city, and state better. Heck, Gonzalez on the White Sox may help rebuild Chile and Haiti faster! :redneck

A. Cavatica

03-01-2010, 10:03 PM

We are also neglecting to realize that an acquisition of Gonzalez means the potential, simultaneous trading of Paul Konerko. We can also easily pick up a defensive specialist at 2nd who can hit just well enough to stay in the lineup (maybe even getting Julio Lugo from the Cardinals to move to 2B now that they have Felipe Lopez). We can live with an offensive weakness or 2 when you have a 3-7 consisting of Gonzalez-Quentin-AJ-Ramirez-Rios.

Lugo sucks. And so does a 5-7 of AJ-Ramirez-Rios.

DirtySox

03-01-2010, 10:07 PM

This is a ridiculous argument. The ONLY "opinions" I see as reasonable are those stating they'd rather keep Bacon because of the economics. Everything else is flawed, wrong, unreasonable, and garbage.

We are also neglecting to realize that an acquisition of Gonzalez means the potential, simultaneous trading of Paul Konerko. We can also easily pick up a defensive specialist at 2nd who can hit just well enough to stay in the lineup (maybe even getting Julio Lugo from the Cardinals to move to 2B now that they have Felipe Lopez). We can live with an offensive weakness or 2 when you have a 3-7 consisting of Gonzalez-Quentin-AJ-Ramirez-Rios.

Funny. That's how I perceive the following suggestions you made. Why on earth would this team trade Beckham AND Konerko? Lugo? Lugo is hot garbage. Losing Beckham and Konerko while adding Adrian makes this team significantly worse than if no moves were made at all.

Pablo_Honey

03-01-2010, 10:16 PM

Sooo... let me get this straight. A lineup with Gonzalez in it is worse than a lineup with Beckham in it? Can you show me a balance of the Padres' lineup last season? I'm guessing AG had 75% of the weight on his shoulders and he still kicked ass.
Did you even read my post? I clearly said a straight up Beckham-Gonzalez swap would make the offense better. Never did I ever say the offense with Beckham was worse than the one with Gonzalez. What I did say about the offense with Gonzalez was that it has a potential to screw us over if A-Gon struggles. Not the same thing as saying the offense would suck with A-Gon in the lineup. And when I said pressure being off of A-Gon, I meant as in lineup protection. Gonzalez had few guys to drive in with San Diego and when he did get those chances, the pitchers walked him. Beckham is one of the few guys we have on the team who can get on base at the moment. If he develops sufficient power, then you can bat him behind A-Gon or Quentin.

This is a ridiculous argument. The ONLY "opinions" I see as reasonable are those stating they'd rather keep Bacon because of the economics. Everything else is flawed, wrong, unreasonable, and garbage.
I will admit that sometimes my arguments will go all over the freaking place and will even be completely off, but I just can't agree that Gonzalez is so good that we would give up our left nuts as well as our future franchise star who has a potentially great bat at a premium position. His production is great but there would be a severe long term consequences if we get rid of Beckham. We traded Rowand and his vacancy still has not been filled properly and will not be until Rios proves he can bring it. Beckham's shoes would be even harder to fill than Rowand's. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

We are also neglecting to realize that an acquisition of Gonzalez means the trading of Paul Konerko. And we can also easily pick up a defensive specialist at 2nd who can hit just well enough to stay in the lineup (maybe even getting Julio Lugo from the Cardinals to move to 2B now that they have Felipe Lopez).
OF COURSE! Wow, trading Konerko suddenly seems so possible with A-Gon on our team! Superman will never - WRONG! Have you forgotten that Paulie is getting paid 12 freaking million dollars? I love Paulie but the numbers he provides do not simply match up with his price. Teams that can afford his contract already have better first basemen and teams that could use his bat cannot simply afford him unless we eat up a part of his contract, but that kind of thing rarely happens so no, there is no way Paulie can be moved at this point. Not to mention, Paulie is a fan favourite, a World Series hero and the team captain. You don't just dump a guy like that. If anything, he walks after 2010, not by trade.

And Julio Lugo? The guy's getting paid $9 mil. Since when did we have such a flexibility in our payroll? We didn't want to pay even Johnny freaking Damon $8 mil. Besides, Lugo is not even that good. His defense is average to bad and his bat is alright but that's about it. Let's face it. There are not many good available bats at second base at Beckham's price. Move Beckham and we've got ourselves a lethal combination of Nix/Lillibridge or Vizquel starting at short and Ramirez to second.

Gonzalez would make this lineup, team, franchise, city, and state better. Heck, Gonzalez on the White Sox may help rebuild Chile and Haiti faster! :redneck
Lineup? Yes. I agree that he is an upgrade but Beckham's not worth it.
Team? Yeah I suppose. Dunno much about his clubhouse presence.
Franchise? No, we'd be losing the new face of the franchise.
City and State? No, but I don't live in Chicago so I can't say for certain.
Chile and Haiti? Uh, yeah, perhaps in our dreams.

DirtySox

03-01-2010, 10:21 PM

OF COURSE! Wow, trading Konerko suddenly seems so possible with A-Gon on our team! Superman will never - WRONG! Have you forgotten that Paulie is getting paid 12 freaking million dollars? I love Paulie but the numbers he provides do not simply match up with his price. Teams that can afford his contract already have better first basemen and teams that could use his bat cannot simply afford him unless we eat up a part of his contract, but that kind of thing rarely happens so no, there is no way Paulie can be moved at this point. Not to mention, Paulie is a fan favourite, a World Series hero and the team captain. You don't just dump a guy like that. If anything, he walks after 2010, not by trade.

Konerko isn't worth what he's being paid, but his value to this team is much greater than the return we would get by trading him. The offense without Konerko (and Beckham if he was traded) could be downright wretched. Even with the addition of Adrian.

Rdy2PlayBall

03-01-2010, 11:02 PM

Lugo sucks. And so does a 5-7 of AJ-Ramirez-Rios.:scratch:

WhiteSoxFan84

03-02-2010, 12:16 AM

Lugo sucks. And so does a 5-7 of AJ-Ramirez-Rios.

Lugo doesn't blow. He's had character issues, for sure, but on the field the guy can produce. I'm going to mention the following Lugo facts (mainly because I spent 2 minutes putting them together) but I don't want him to become the focal point of my "Acquire Adrian Gonzalez (AAG)" campaign:

Played 114 games/765 innings (including 30/168.1 last season) at 2B in his career and committed only 10 errors (2 of them in '09).

His bat has been surprisingly productive the last 2 seasons:
2009: .280 BA/.353 OBP in 257 AB/286 PA
2008: .268/.355 in 261/295

If you go a year further, he was horrible in 2007. But one can argue it was because he was playing for Boston for the first time, who knows.

The point of all of this is you can replace a second basemen A LOT easier than you can replace a young, left-handed, power-hitting, Gold Glove winning, clubhouse uplifting, franchise changing presence like that of A-Gon's.

Fin.

Pablo_Honey

03-02-2010, 03:52 PM

Played 114 games/765 innings (including 30/168.1 last season) at 2B in his career and committed only 10 errors (2 of them in '09).
The guy was brutal at short so I'd assume he's probably average at second base. I haven't seen him play there so I will just leave it at that assumption. And those 10 errors don't really tell us anything about his defense.

His bat has been surprisingly productive the last 2 seasons:
2009: .280 BA/.353 OBP in 257 AB/286 PA
2008: .268/.355 in 261/295
...so you are admitting that he has been average in the past but is now somehow putting up good numbers in limited playing time?

The point of all of this is you can replace a second basemen A LOT easier
As I said before, Lugo is overpaid and his skillset is average at best. Name one other guy at second base that we can easily acquire. I'll be glad to be proven wrong but I just don't see it, man.
than you can replace a young, left-handed, power-hitting, Gold Glove winning, clubhouse uplifting, franchise changing presence like that of A-Gon's.
Swisher and O-Cab were supposed to bring that SWAGGER, that PASSION. Both guys left the team on bitter terms and both guys somehow went from clubhouse guys to clubhouse cancers. Oh and franchise changing? Oh yeah, Pads were in such a stinkhole and now they have turned themselves around. Oh wait, no they haven't. Seriously, Beckham is just as franchse-changing as A-Gon for Sox. We freaking drafted the kid and he rose up to the stardom so fast that fans are excited to see what he can do. A-Gon's bat is great. I'm not denying that. But for Beckham? I don't think so.

Craig Grebeck

03-02-2010, 03:59 PM

Baseball wise and economically, I see no reason why Gonzalez will be markedly better than Beckham over the next 5-7 seasons.

Taliesinrk

03-02-2010, 04:22 PM

Baseball wise and economically, I see no reason why Gonzalez will be markedly better than Beckham over the next 5-7 seasons.

But, just to play devil's advocate (good to see you back Grebeck), are the Sox playing for the next 5-7 years, or are they playing for this one? I'd argue that with the pitching staff they have, they should be looking at today, not the future.

That said, I wouldn't deal Beckham here.

Craig Grebeck

03-02-2010, 04:27 PM

But, just to play devil's advocate (good to see you back Grebeck), are the Sox playing for the next 5-7 years, or are they playing for this one? I'd argue that with the pitching staff they have, they should be looking at today, not the future.

That said, I wouldn't deal Beckham here.
I think, looking at this season and the options that will be presented at the deadline (which should include Dunn and Berkman), the White Sox would be foolish to include Beckham in a deal to acquire a 28 year old first baseman. If I'm dealing Beckham, I want a guy like Andrew McCutcheon coming back, i.e. another up-the-middle guy with superstar potential. But I still wouldn't do that.

cards press box

03-02-2010, 04:55 PM

Um. Since when?

Players who accelerate through the farm system as fast and as well as Beckham did, they often become superstars. Add in the fact that Beckham plays in the middle infield and could eventually hit .280-.300 with 25-30 homers and 50 doubles and great baseball acumen on the diamond and you have a guy that will soon be the face of this franchise if he isn't already.

Daver

03-02-2010, 05:46 PM

Players who accelerate through the farm system as fast and as well as Beckham did, they often become superstars. Add in the fact that Beckham plays in the middle infield and could eventually hit .280-.300 with 25-30 homers and 50 doubles and great baseball acumen on the diamond and you have a guy that will soon be the face of this franchise if he isn't already.

For every Beckham there are a dozen Joe Borchards, except Borchard projected to a much higher ceiling than Beckham did.

I think, looking at this season and the options that will be presented at the deadline (which should include Dunn and Berkman), the White Sox would be foolish to include Beckham in a deal to acquire a 28 year old first baseman. If I'm dealing Beckham, I want a guy like Andrew McCutcheon coming back, i.e. another up-the-middle guy with superstar potential. But I still wouldn't do that.

I agree, I'm not huge on trading up in years and down the defensive spectrum.

cards press box

03-02-2010, 07:20 PM

For every Beckham there are a dozen Joe Borchards, except Borchard projected to a much higher ceiling than Beckham did.

I know it's always tricky to gauge the value of prospects but having seen Gordon Beckham play, I think he is a special player, one who could eventually go to Cooperstown. I never had that sense about Borchard. Yes, Borchard had physical tools and seemed to be a great athlete. But I was never convinced that he was a great baseball player. I am convinced that Beckham is.

mzh

03-02-2010, 07:45 PM

Baseball wise and economically, I see no reason why Gonzalez will be markedly better than Beckham over the next 5-7 seasons.
Because in 7 years Gonzalez will be 36 and (most likely) on the downswing whereas Beckham will be in the prime of his career. There's a reason.

Craig Grebeck

03-02-2010, 07:59 PM

Because in 7 years Gonzalez will be 36 and (most likely) on the downswing whereas Beckham will be in the prime of his career. There's a reason.
And Gonzalez is a first baseman, for one. And he'll be making in upwards of $20 million a year soon.

Daver

03-02-2010, 08:04 PM

And Gonzalez is a first baseman, for one. And he'll be making in upwards of $20 million a year soon.

What is the stat that correlates talent to paycheck?

And exactly how do you apply it?

Craig Grebeck

03-02-2010, 08:30 PM

What is the stat that correlates talent to paycheck?

And exactly how do you apply it?
What is the rationale in paying a first baseman $20 million a year when the White Sox have so much money committed to Peavy?

And what snarky joke about statistics will best convey your emotions?

Taliesinrk

03-02-2010, 08:36 PM

Because in 7 years Gonzalez will be 36 and (most likely) on the downswing whereas Beckham will be in the prime of his career. There's a reason.

Sounds like a good reason to me... Is there a reason why this isn't a good reason?

What is the stat that correlates talent to paycheck?

And exactly how do you apply it?

Grebeck's point seems pretty good to me. I agree that he puts too much emphasis on stats, but was your comment just mocking him, or were you actually taking issue with his statement?

TheVulture

03-02-2010, 08:46 PM

For every Beckham there are a dozen Joe Borchards, except Borchard projected to a much higher ceiling than Beckham did.

Beckham is already beyond anything Borchard has done at the major league level. Borchard at AAA never performed as well as Beckham has at the major league level, for crying out loud. And Borchard may have projected better athletically, but his baseball skills were highly questionable, whereas Beckham is a ballplayer through and through.

I agree though, I don't think we can equate Beckham with say Chase Utley just yet. We know Gonzalez is a beast while Beckham is already a pretty good player who only looks like he may develop into a beast.

I'm not sure I'd give up Beckham, though. However, I'd think you'd need to give up some major league players to get Gonzalez. So what major league players would one be willing to give up in a package to get him? I'd think Beckham, Ramirez, and Quentin would be the only players attractive to the Padres. Danks and Floyd on the other side of the ball. Quite frankly, if the trade were made today and Ramirez or Quentin were included you'd still have to throw in a few good prospects. Danks or Floyd probably another good prospect or two. Assuming the Padres do require major league players in this trade, which would be the best bet?

Brian26

03-02-2010, 09:02 PM

(good to see you back Grebeck)

Grebeck's point seems pretty good to me. I agree that he puts too much emphasis on stats, but was your comment just mocking him, or were you actually taking issue with his statement?

Please stop.

thomas35forever

03-02-2010, 09:24 PM

KW says Gordon's here for the long haul. All this talk about him being involved in a trade for Gonzalez can be put to rest now.
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/guillen-beckham-to-stay-for-a-long-time.html

SoxSpeed22

03-02-2010, 09:57 PM

I call dibs on bumping this thread in May when Gordon tears it up this year. Just as long as he can hit a low and away slider.
You don't see the Twins trading Joe Mauer in 2004 because he didn't prove anything at the major league level, you don't see the Rays trading Evan Longoria when he was a rookie. I could go on with this.
I don't think Beckham will win MVPs, but he should be able to make multiple all-star teams as long as he puts in the work into playing second base (he did a pretty good job adjusting to 3rd base on the fly) and continue to hitting the ball to all sides of the field.

Ranger

03-02-2010, 10:17 PM

Because in 7 years Gonzalez will be 36 and (most likely) on the downswing whereas Beckham will be in the prime of his career. There's a reason.

He wouldn't be 36 until 2018.

What is the rationale in paying a first baseman $20 million a year when the White Sox have so much money committed to Peavy?

Because there wouldn't be Konerko's salary to worry about anymore. For a player like Gonzalez, I think they could find a way to make that work.

Lip Man 1

03-02-2010, 10:20 PM

I don't think Beckham's going to be traded unless it involves a massive deal that is beyond anyone's imagination right now, that being said, I wouldn't put complete stock in anything Ozzie or Kenny says on this at this time.

With Kenny you just can't say with 100% accuracy what may be going on behind the scenes when it involves trade talk.

Lip

doublem23

03-02-2010, 10:26 PM

Because there wouldn't be Konerko's salary to worry about anymore. For a player like Gonzalez, I think they could find a way to make that work.

You would think that, but this is the team that balked at two upgrades over their current DH situation over a couple million dollars, despite outwardly saying that ticket sales are the best they've been since 2006.

I've tried to defend the Sox in the past few years because payroll has ballooned to levels I never dreamed I'd see, but this reeks of the same old, penny-pinching bull**** they used to pull.

TheOldRoman

03-02-2010, 10:50 PM

You would think that, but this is the team that balked at two upgrades over their current DH situation over a couple million dollars, despite outwardly saying that ticket sales are the best they've been since 2006.

I've tried to defend the Sox in the past few years because payroll has ballooned to levels I never dreamed I'd see, but this reeks of the same old, penny-pinching bull**** they used to pull.If you are referring to Matsui, I don't think it was made public knowledge the terms of the deal he was offered. Maybe they made the same offer the Angels did, but he wanted to play in Cal? The Sox didn't balk at Damon over a couple million dollars, either. The Sox' offer was supposedly $4.5 million up-front. The Tigers offered $8 mil, that is a significant difference. Furthermore, Boras absolutely wouldn't have had Damon in camp for at least another week, and the Sox wouldn't have gotten him for that price tag with Detroit in the bidding. If the Sox didn't "pull" their offer, we would have lingered a week or two longer and Detroit would have caved and offered something ridiculous like 2yr/$20 mil.

jabrch

03-02-2010, 11:09 PM

You would think that, but this is the team that balked at two upgrades over their current DH situation over a couple million dollars, despite outwardly saying that ticket sales are the best they've been since 2006.

I've tried to defend the Sox in the past few years because payroll has ballooned to levels I never dreamed I'd see, but this reeks of the same old, penny-pinching bull**** they used to pull.

a 105mm payroll...and you talk about penny pinching? Dubs - you keep grinding your axe over there pal...

doublem23

03-02-2010, 11:16 PM

If you are referring to Matsui, I don't think it was made public knowledge the terms of the deal he was offered. Maybe they made the same offer the Angels did, but he wanted to play in Cal? The Sox didn't balk at Damon over a couple million dollars, either. The Sox' offer was supposedly $4.5 million up-front. The Tigers offered $8 mil, that is a significant difference. Furthermore, Boras absolutely wouldn't have had Damon in camp for at least another week, and the Sox wouldn't have gotten him for that price tag with Detroit in the bidding. If the Sox didn't "pull" their offer, we would have lingered a week or two longer and Detroit would have caved and offered something ridiculous like 2yr/$20 mil.

No, I'm not talking about Matsui, I don't think he was coming here.

$4 M on a $100+ M payroll is not a significant amount, especially for the level of upgrade Damon would have given us over the current situation. Would you buy a brand new car and then only buy 3 tires for it because the 4th was "a little too expensive?"

a 105mm payroll...and you talk about penny pinching? Dubs - you keep grinding your axe over there pal...

Yep. Straight up mid-90's cheapskate bull****. We've got arguably the best pitching staff in the league and we're pinching pennies on the offense. I sure do love having to rely on our guys playing way above their heads and hoping other teams don't play above their own expectations. Sure beats going out and getting proven, more reliable players because we can't up the payroll by 5%.

Noneck

03-02-2010, 11:19 PM

Having a 105m payroll doesn't tell crap if penny pinching is going on. In depends on the revenue coming in, minus the expenses going out.

Since the books are not open, maybe penny pinching is going on and maybe its not.

voodoochile

03-02-2010, 11:25 PM

No, I'm not talking about Matsui, I don't think he was coming here.

$4 M on a $100+ M payroll is not a significant amount, especially for the level of upgrade Damon would have given us over the current situation. Would you buy a brand new car and then only buy 3 tires for it because the 4th was "a little too expensive?"

Yep. Straight up mid-90's cheapskate bull****. We've got arguably the best pitching staff in the league and we're pinching pennies on the offense. I sure do love having to rely on our guys playing way above their heads and hoping other teams don't play above their own expectations. Sure beats going out and getting proven, more reliable players because we can't up the payroll by 5%.

Um a new tire costs $100 on an investment of $20,000. That's 0.5% additional cost and is a top of the line tire. You might be able to get the cost down to 0.25% depending on the make of the car and the size of the tire required. Heck, in some case on really expensive cars the tire might be 0.1% and again, you're still talking about $100-200 total cost.

Meanwhile the Sox were faced with a $4M dollar increase above and beyond the $4M they were already offering (with $2M additional deferred apparently). So first of all it's more like an 8% increase to costs. To use your car analogy that's an additional $1600 and there are a lot of people who will forgo spending that much additional on a car and in either case it's still a silly analogy because the percentages become meaningless when talking about the differences in monetary levels. You can't compare 2M to $100 even if the percentages are the same. It's simply silly to do it, period.

Oh and they were willing to up it by 5% but not by 8% (and again that's a $3M difference) so again you're ranting and railing against facts that just don't add up...

doublem23

03-02-2010, 11:30 PM

Oh and they were willing to up it by 5% but not by 8% (and again that's a $3M difference) so again you're ranting and railing against facts that just don't add up...

:thome:
Oh, I don't think he is.

I'm glad so many of you will be happy that JR is turning a profit this year while we get to watch Andruw Jones flail helplessly in the clean-up spot.

voodoochile

03-02-2010, 11:36 PM

:thome:
Oh, I don't think he is.

I'm glad so many of you will be happy that JR is turning a profit this year while we get to watch Andruw Jones flail helplessly in the clean-up spot.

You're still ranting about the non-signing of Thome? LOL... time go let it go, doub. He gone, time to move on...

I absolutely love the certainty with which you predict that Jones will not only flail hopelessly but bat 4th...

:cleo:
"I got nothing on you, doub... You da mon..."

Taliesinrk

03-02-2010, 11:41 PM

Please stop.

If you'll read most of my posts, I almost never agree with Grebeck. I wasn't trying to start anything with the second part, but I didn't want to type out a long response if Daver wasn't actually questioning Grebeck's point... I was genuinely asking.

doublem23

03-02-2010, 11:48 PM

You're still ranting about the non-signing of Thome? LOL... time go let it go, doub. He gone, time to move on...

I absolutely love the certainty with which you predict that Jones will not only flail hopelessly but bat 4th...

:cleo:
"I got nothing on you, doub... You da mon..."

Thome is just one of the many improvements the Sox could have made this off-season, and one who would have come here for not a lot of coin. The Sox are either being stubbornly stupid or cheap, and I'm willing to cut them the slack and say they're just being cheap because there is absolutely no way anyone could look at this lineup and actually think this is a good idea, or at least not recognize the opportunity for drastic, drastic improvement.

As for Jones, I can totally see how a guy who just didn't hit for **** in the best hitter's park in the league under the tutelage of the best hitting coach in the league will magically turn it around now that he's playing in a less-friendly park with a mediocre coaching staff. How silly of me not to notice that kind of **** happens all the time!!! The fact that we're all clapping our hands because he was considerate enough to show up to training camp in shape should tell you what kind of worthless bag of garbage we're dealing with. YAY! A professional athlete who took the time to not report as a fat ass tub of goo. How could this gem slip past the other 29 teams in the league!?

doublem23

03-02-2010, 11:58 PM

:cleo
"I got nothing on you, doub... You da mon..."

I mean, seriously, you all realize that not one other team in professional baseball was even willing to give this guy a chance and we're talking about giving him the majority of plate appearances in the clean-up spot, right? Trust me, if Miss Cleo is laughing at anyone around here, it's the faction that are holding out hope that Jones will somehow not be a disaster.

voodoochile

03-03-2010, 12:03 AM

I mean, seriously, you all realize that not one other team in professional baseball was even willing to give this guy a chance and we're talking about giving him the majority of plate appearances in the clean-up spot, right? Trust me, if Miss Cleo is laughing at anyone around here, it's the faction that are holding out hope that Jones will somehow not be a disaster.

I guess I missed the link that said Jones was going to bat 4th.

TheVulture

03-03-2010, 12:06 AM

Thome is just one of the many improvements the Sox could have made this off-season, and one who would have come here for not a lot of coin. The Sox are either being stubbornly stupid or cheap, and I'm willing to cut them the slack and say they're just being cheap because there is absolutely no way anyone could look at this lineup and actually think this is a good idea, or at least not recognize the opportunity for drastic, drastic improvement.

The entire Thome argument hinges on whether one believes that Thome will continue to produce at this stage in his career. I believe no one in baseball has a better grasp on that than Herm Schneider and the rest of the Sox organization. The 31/8 k/bb ratio Thome put up in 22 starts in August along with any information the Sox had on his physical condition may have led Kenny to believe Thome is unlikely to be effective in 2010 at age 40.

Look at Harold Baines - he went from .312/.387/.533 at age 40 to worthless in the blink of an eye.

doublem23

03-03-2010, 12:07 AM

I guess I missed the link that said Jones was going to bat 4th.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=118272

Oh, and the days Jones isn't being a black hole in the middle of the lineup, we get to watch Omar Vizquel and his .301 OBP over the last 3 years lead-off.

Don't worry, though, JR's profits aren't in jeopardy.

TheOldRoman

03-03-2010, 12:07 AM

:thome:
Oh, I don't think he is.

I'm glad so many of you will be happy that JR is turning a profit this year while we get to watch Andruw Jones flail helplessly in the clean-up spot.Thome had NOTHING to do with money. He probably would have signed for $1 mil if the Sox offered. They didn't want him back. They never even exchanged figures. And considering they made an offer to Damon a)they planned on spending money at some point, and b)they figured they would be better off signing someone else later in free agency or going with that they had until a midseason trade. If you don't like the DH by committee, that is fine. It wouldn't be my preference, either. But crying cheap removes all legitimacy from your arguement.

doublem23

03-03-2010, 12:08 AM

The entire Thome argument hinges on whether one believes that Thome will continue to produce at this stage in his career. I believe no one in baseball has a better grasp on that than Herm Schneider and the rest of the Sox organization. The 31/8 k/bb ratio Thome put up in 22 starts in August along with any information the Sox had on his physical condition may have led Kenny to believe Thome is unlikely to be effective in 2010 at age 40.

Look at Harold Baines - he went from .312/.387/.533 at age 40 to worthless in the blink of an eye.

Thome had NOTHING to do with money. He probably would have signed for $1 mil if the Sox offered. They didn't want him back. They never even exchanged figures. And considering they made an offer to Damon a)they planned on spending money at some point, and b)they figured they would be better off signing someone else later in free agency or going with that they had until a midseason trade. If you don't like the DH by committee, that is fine. It wouldn't be my preference, either. But crying cheap removes all legitimacy from your arguement.

Well then the Sox are just being ****ing stupid. I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that they realize Thome... Or just about anyone else, would be an upgrade for our team but they just don't want to shell out the cash.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 12:09 AM

I kinda wish Jack Cust used to be fast or a good defensive outfielder. People would have been all over KW pursuing him.

TheOldRoman

03-03-2010, 12:12 AM

Um a new tire costs $100 on an investment of $20,000. That's 0.5% additional cost and is a top of the line tire. You might be able to get the cost down to 0.25% depending on the make of the car and the size of the tire required. Heck, in some case on really expensive cars the tire might be 0.1% and again, you're still talking about $100-200 total cost.

Meanwhile the Sox were faced with a $4M dollar increase above and beyond the $4M they were already offering (with $2M additional deferred apparently). So first of all it's more like an 8% increase to costs. To use your car analogy that's an additional $1600 and there are a lot of people who will forgo spending that much additional on a car and in either case it's still a silly analogy because the percentages become meaningless when talking about the differences in monetary levels. You can't compare 2M to $100 even if the percentages are the same. It's simply silly to do it, period.

Oh and they were willing to up it by 5% but not by 8% (and again that's a $3M difference) so again you're ranting and railing against facts that just don't add up...Furthermore, people are not realizing that unless Detroit dropped out of the bidding, Damon would have never signed here for $8 million. Detroit has crappy management, and has no bailed Boras out thrice when he overplayed his hand. If the Sox didn't pull their offer, the saga would have dragged on longer, and the Tigers would have eventually caved and done something really dumb like doubling their offer. They are the Tigers, it's what they do. And we all have seen Boras' work enough to know his style. If the Sox offered $8 million, they would have gone to Detroit and gotten $10 mil.

TheOldRoman

03-03-2010, 12:16 AM

Well then the Sox are just being ****ing stupid. I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that they realize Thome...Okay. Fine. That is an arguement. You think they made the wrong choice.

Or just about anyone else, would be an upgrade for our team but they just don't want to shell out the cash.
http://www.hollywood-costumes.com/austinpowers/evil2b.jpg

"*sigh* You just don't get it. Do ya, Scott? Ya don't."

DonnieDarko

03-03-2010, 12:17 AM

I would be pleasantly surprised if this rotating DH thing would actually work.

Seeing as it likely won't, I won't be surprised to see Flowers or Viciedo up at some point early or mid-season to try and fill that void. Who KNOWS how that will work out. It would really be a nice selling point to increase the payroll just to get someone like Adam Dunn or something (who I would HOPE we would get next season...either him or maybe Fielder?).

voodoochile

03-03-2010, 12:19 AM

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=118272

Oh, and the days Jones isn't being a black hole in the middle of the lineup, we get to watch Omar Vizquel and his .301 OBP over the last 3 years lead-off.

Don't worry, though, JR's profits aren't in jeopardy.

Sucked back in to the black hole of your delusional negativity once again...

I'll go to bed now and dream of another inch of snow we're supposed to get tonight...

It's the absolute assurance you have that the absolute worst possible outcome will occur that boggles my mind. You're convinced Jones will suck worse than the suckiest suck whoever sucked and that he will bat 4th for the whole season regardless of the level of his massive suckitude and that when we aren't seeing him suck, we'll see Vizquel suck in his sucky place.

What if you pencil Quentin in at DH? Would you be this upset if Jones/Kotsay replaced Dye in RF?

Personally, I'm just going to drink the kool-aid and prepare for the Jones Comeback Player of the Year award.

doublem23

03-03-2010, 12:25 AM

Sucked back in to the black hole of your delusional negativity once again...

I'll go to bed now and dream of another inch of snow we're supposed to get tonight...

It's the absolute assurance you have that the absolute worst possible outcome will occur that boggles my mind. You're convinced Jones will suck worse than the suckiest suck whoever sucked and that he will bat 4th for the whole season regardless of the level of his massive suckitude and that when we aren't seeing him suck, we'll see Vizquel suck in his sucky place.

Your argument sucks...

Good night...

I'm sorry, voodoo, that I have no faith in a guy that hit .185/.310/.333 in the 2nd half of last season (despite playing 1/2 his games in the best hitter's park in the American League) and who has only been relevant in baseball over the last three seasons because of how miserably he has performed compared to his paychecks.

VMSNS

03-03-2010, 12:27 AM

Didn't Kenny try to get us Matsui, Nick Johnson, then Damon? I don't necessarily think it's a situation of Kenny not trying of pinching pennies, but the DH situation just not going our way. Sometime, things just don't work out the way they're supposed to. This may have been one of those things. Therefore, we have to live with the DH by committee for the time being. I think Kenny wants another bat just as much as we do. In fact, I'm pretty sure he had been quoted saying that around Sox Fest.

I guarantee that Kenny trades for another bat before the deadline.

jabrch

03-03-2010, 06:53 AM

Yep. Straight up mid-90's cheapskate bull****.

You are turning into a complete cartoon of yourself Dubs.

asindc

03-03-2010, 08:14 AM

Thome is just one of the many improvements the Sox could have made this off-season, and one who would have come here for not a lot of coin. The Sox are either being stubbornly stupid or cheap, and I'm willing to cut them the slack and say they're just being cheap because there is absolutely no way anyone could look at this lineup and actually think this is a good idea, or at least not recognize the opportunity for drastic, drastic improvement.

As for Jones, I can totally see how a guy who just didn't hit for **** in the best hitter's park in the league under the tutelage of the best hitting coach in the league will magically turn it around now that he's playing in a less-friendly park with a mediocre coaching staff. How silly of me not to notice that kind of **** happens all the time!!! The fact that we're all clapping our hands because he was considerate enough to show up to training camp in shape should tell you what kind of worthless bag of garbage we're dealing with. YAY! A professional athlete who took the time to not report as a fat ass tub of goo. How could this gem slip past the other 29 teams in the league!?

As it has been noted numerous times before, Sox management and many fans posting here disagree that Thome would be an improvement over the present DH situation. Apparently your ire is based on your absolute certainty that he would be. So either 1) you are certain that you know more about Thome's ability to DH than Sox management does, or 2) you are certain that Sox management does not want to field the best team possible, despite agreeing with you that Thome is a better option than Jones. I suppose if I was as certain about either of those things as you seem to be, I would be just as upset with Sox management as you are.

asindc

03-03-2010, 08:18 AM

No, I'm not talking about Matsui, I don't think he was coming here.

$4 M on a $100+ M payroll is not a significant amount, especially for the level of upgrade Damon would have given us over the current situation. Would you buy a brand new car and then only buy 3 tires for it because the 4th was "a little too expensive?"

Yep. Straight up mid-90's cheapskate bull****. We've got arguably the best pitching staff in the league and we're pinching pennies on the offense. I sure do love having to rely on our guys playing way above their heads and hoping other teams don't play above their own expectations. Sure beats going out and getting proven, more reliable players because we can't up the payroll by 5%.

The thing is that none of us know if they are at max budget now and were willing to go 5% over budget to get Damon, or if they are at 90% salary budget now and refused to go to max to get Damon. We just don't know. It could be either scenario.

Having a 105m payroll doesn't tell crap if penny pinching is going on. In depends on the revenue coming in, minus the expenses going out.

Since the books are not open, maybe penny pinching is going on and maybe its not.

I agree with this.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 08:21 AM

As it has been noted numerous times before, Sox management and many fans posting here disagree that Thome would be an improvement over the present DH situation. Apparently your ire is based on your absolute certainty that he would be. So either 1) you are certain that you know more about Thome's ability to DH than Sox management does, or 2) you are certain that Sox management does not want to field the best team possible, despite agreeing with you that Thome is a better option than Jones. I suppose if I was as certain about either of those things as you seem to be, I would be just as upset with Sox management as you are.
I don't really think it takes so much hubris to think that Thome would be a better risk than Jonesay.

Edit: it has been my stance now for some time that KW moved too quickly to fill the replaceable holes on this team. How much more would I rather have Felipe Lopez than Omar Vizquel at the same price? There aren't words. What about Thome instead of Kotsay? Ditto.

asindc

03-03-2010, 08:22 AM

Thome is just one of the many improvements the Sox could have made this off-season, and one who would have come here for not a lot of coin. The Sox are either being stubbornly stupid or cheap, and I'm willing to cut them the slack and say they're just being cheap because there is absolutely no way anyone could look at this lineup and actually think this is a good idea, or at least not recognize the opportunity for drastic, drastic improvement.

As for Jones, I can totally see how a guy who just didn't hit for **** in the best hitter's park in the league under the tutelage of the best hitting coach in the league will magically turn it around now that he's playing in a less-friendly park with a mediocre coaching staff. How silly of me not to notice that kind of **** happens all the time!!! The fact that we're all clapping our hands because he was considerate enough to show up to training camp in shape should tell you what kind of worthless bag of garbage we're dealing with. YAY! A professional athlete who took the time to not report as a fat ass tub of goo. How could this gem slip past the other 29 teams in the league!?

The same way...

... Quentin's breakout in 2008 slipped past 29 teams...

...Dye's resurgence slipped past 28 teams...

...Floyd's development slipped past 29 teams...

...Jenks' career resurrection slipped past 29 teams...

...Thornton's improvement slipped past 29 teams...

I could go on, but suffice it to say that it happens. All. The. Time.

asindc

03-03-2010, 08:24 AM

I mean, seriously, you all realize that not one other team in professional baseball was even willing to give this guy a chance and we're talking about giving him the majority of plate appearances in the clean-up spot, right? Trust me, if Miss Cleo is laughing at anyone around here, it's the faction that are holding out hope that Jones will somehow not be a disaster.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that is happens. All. The. Time.
This is entirely dishonest, for one thing. Each of these players were targeted and acquired through trades, which does not implicate every other team in the league and prop up KW's greatness. All good moves, but many knew TCQ would be an awesome ballplayer.

And none of them are remotely similar to Andruw Jones.

asindc

03-03-2010, 08:37 AM

I don't really think it takes so much hubris to think that Thome would be a better risk than Jonesay.

Edit: it has been my stance now for some time that KW moved too quickly to fill the replaceable holes on this team. How much more would I rather have Felipe Lopez than Omar Vizquel at the same price? There aren't words. What about Thome instead of Kotsay? Ditto.

It is one thing to believe that Thome would have been a better option, it is a difference thing altogether to believe it with such absolute certainty that you question the competency and motives of Sox management.

asindc

03-03-2010, 08:48 AM

This is entirely dishonest, for one thing. Each of these players were targeted and acquired through trades, which does not implicate every other team in the league and prop up KW's greatness. All good moves, but many knew TCQ would be an awesome ballplayer.

And none of them are remotely similar to Andruw Jones.

So why didn't any of the other 28 teams trade for Quentin? Why did Ariz. trade him in the first place? Why didn't any of the other 29 teams trade for Floyd? Why did Philly trade him in the first place? Why didn't any of the other 29 teams, besides Texas, try to sign Dye in 2004? My point is in response to the argument that since no one else seemed to want Jones, that should be an indication that he will not be productive this year. The examples I gave are of players who have disproved that argument on the Sox alone, not even accounting for similar cases on other teams.

The argument also discount's Jones' acknowledgment that he did not work hard the past three years and his performance suffered as a result. You can dismiss that as PR talk from a guy facing questions about his decline, but when you combine that talk with early results (reporting to camp in much better shape than the past three years) and Sox management's preference for him over Thome, there is reason to think he will play better than he has the past three seasons and, more to the point, at least better than Thome would have here. If you disagree, that's fine, but I really don't think it can be proclaimed with slam-dunk certainty that Jones will fail to produce this season with those factors in mind.

By the way, as far as we know no one besides the Twinkees offered Thome a contract. Does that mean he is certain to suck this year?

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 08:53 AM

So why didn't any of the other 28 teams trade for Quentin? Why did Ariz. trade him in the first place? Why didn't any of the other 29 teams trade for Floyd? Why did Philly trade him in the first place? Why didn't any of the other 29 teams, besides Texas, try to sign Dye in 2004? My point is in response to the argument that since no one else seemed to want Jones, that should be an indication that he will not be productive this year. The examples I gave are of players who have disproved that argument on the Sox alone, not even accounting for similar cases on other teams.

The argument also discount's Jones' acknowledgment that he did not work hard the past three years and his performance suffered as a result. You can dismiss that as PR talk from a guy facing questions about his decline, but when you combine that talk with early results (reporting to camp in much better shape than the past three years) and Sox management's preference for him over Thome, there is reason to think he will play better than he has the past three seasons and, more to the point, at least better than Thome would have here. If you disagree, that's fine, but I really don't think it can be proclaimed with slam-dunk certainty that Jones will fail to produce this season with those factors in mind.

By the way, as far as we know no one besides the Twinkees offered Thome a contract. Does that mean he is certain to suck this year?
1. The reasons for Quentin being traded are well-documented and not difficult to understand: Eric Byrnes and Chris Carter. Carter is now in the A's organization and considered by many the best pure power prospect in the game. That wasn't a difficult decision to make for them, seeing as Quentin didn't really have a place in the outfield because of their terrible Byrnes extension.
2. Jones' production doesn't seem feasible when you evaluate his performance the last three seasons. Yes, he's in shape -- but will that give him better plate discipline? Better contact ability? Who knows?
3. Thome's skills age far better than Jones' -- that is, Thome's ability to get on base.

I know that we've argued about this a lot, so there's no need rehashing it, but I just don't think you can say simply that Quentin was "passed over" by 29 teams. Why didn't they all trade for him? Some of them probably didn't want to give up their own Chris Carter to get someone who had to be dealt.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 08:54 AM

It is one thing to believe that Thome would have been a better option, it is a difference thing altogether to believe it with such absolute certainty that you question the competency and motives of Sox management.
Questioning the competency of Sox management isn't irrational. Darin Erstad was our center fielder in 2007. Ozzie Guillen said he'd rather Rios swipe 50 bags than hit 50 home runs. Ken Griffey Jr. played CF in 2008. Et cetera.

They make bad moves. It's okay to acknowledge they can be dumb sometimes.

asindc

03-03-2010, 09:09 AM

1. The reasons for Quentin being traded are well-documented and not difficult to understand: Eric Byrnes and Chris Carter. Carter is now in the A's organization and considered by many the best pure power prospect in the game. That wasn't a difficult decision to make for them, seeing as Quentin didn't really have a place in the outfield because of their terrible Byrnes extension.
2. Jones' production doesn't seem feasible when you evaluate his performance the last three seasons. Yes, he's in shape -- but will that give him better plate discipline? Better contact ability? Who knows?
3. Thome's skills age far better than Jones' -- that is, Thome's ability to get on base.

I know that we've argued about this a lot, so there's no need rehashing it, but I just don't think you can say simply that Quentin was "passed over" by 29 teams. Why didn't they all trade for him? Some of them probably didn't want to give up their own Chris Carter to get someone who had to be dealt.

Add to that the fact that Ariz. obviously valued Chris Young more than the Sox did, and Quentin far less than the Sox did. This was posted as a sticky on the D'backs fan site some time during the 2008 season: "We do not talk about Carlos Quentin here." I am willing to bet that the other 29 GMs in the league would gladly go back in time and offer their Chris Carter for Quentin. KW did not need that kind of hindsight. Again, the point here is in response to the original suggestion that since a guy was apparently not wanted by any other team, that means he will suck. Since KW's strong suit is plucking diamonds out of the rough, I believe that should be taken into account when evaluating the Jones acquisition.

They make bad moves. It's okay to acknowledge they can be dumb sometimes.

No doubt. And being fallible, just like every other management team in sports, they will make more bad moves. I just don't think it can be proclaimed with such certainty on the first week of ST that this is one of them.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 09:11 AM

Add to that the fact that Ariz. obviously valued Chris Young more than the Sox did, and Quentin far less than the Sox did. This was posted as a sticky on the D'backs fan site some time during the 2008 season: "We do not talk about Carlos Quentin here." I am willing to bet that the other 29 GMs in the league would gladly go back in time and over their Chris Carter for Quentin. KW did not need that kind of hindsight. Again, the point here is in response to the original suggestion that since a guy was apparently not wanted by any other team, that means he will suck. Since KW's strong suit is plucking diamonds out of the rough, I believe that should be taken into account when evaluating the Jones acquisition.
Upton: RF
Byrnes: LF
Young: CF

Young is a fantastic defensive CF, and Quentin is a corner. It's not that they valued Young more (which wouldn't have been too crazy at the time), it's that they had a CF and two corners locked in.

Choosing Upton over Quentin is incredibly simple.

KW whiffs on these diamonds in the rough from time to time. Because he made savvy moves (calling Quentin a diamond in the rough borders on idiotic -- he was a diamond people knew about) doesn't mean Jones' three years should be thrown out the window.

asindc

03-03-2010, 09:19 AM

Upton: RF
Byrnes: LF
Young: CF

Young is a fantastic defensive CF, and Quentin is a corner. It's not that they valued Young more (which wouldn't have been too crazy at the time), it's that they had a CF and two corners locked in.

Choosing Upton over Quentin is incredibly simple.

KW whiffs on these diamonds in the rough from time to time. Because he made savvy moves (calling Quentin a diamond in the rough borders on idiotic -- he was a diamond people knew about) doesn't mean Jones' three years should be thrown out the window.

CG,

It seems that you think that I do not recognize the risks associated with Jones. I do. That is why I preferred Matsui or Damon. Apparently Sox management recognizes those risks as well, which is evident in their pursuit of those guys.

Yes, I know that Quentin was a lot more than a diamond in the rough, but the demand for him was so low that KW got him for a Class A first baseman. My point continues to be that despite Quentin's promise, apparently only one team offered to trade for him. Obviously, that does not mean he sucked, it means that at least most, if not all, other teams did not think he was worth it. Still not a reason to have proclaimed with certainty his suckitude before the 2008 season.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 09:22 AM

CG,

It seems that you think that I do not recognize the risks associated with Jones. I do. That is why I preferred Matsui or Damon. Apparently Sox management recognizes those risks as well, which is evident in their pursuit of those guys.

Yes, I know that Quentin was a lot more than a diamond in the rough, but the demand for him was so low that KW got him for a Class A first baseman. My point continues to be that despite Quentin's promise, apparently only one team offered to trade for him. Obviously, that does not mean he sucked, it means that at least most, if not all, other teams did not think he was worth it. Still not a reason to have proclaimed with certainty his suckitude before the 2008 season.
I understand, asindc. I don't want to give Josh Byrnes' operation too much credit, but they might have seen a lot in Carter. KW probably did too, and I'm definitely the type who doesn't value first baseman all that much. That's part of why Brandon Allen doesn't worry me.

I don't have any qualms about parting with Carter. First baseman come and go, which has been my stance on this whole Gonzalez issue from day one. If you can get him for a song -- which we won't, and our system won't produce the type of package necessary -- do it. If not, move on. I'd much rather have Berkman anyway.

canOcorn

03-03-2010, 09:48 AM

I understand, asindc. I don't want to give Josh Byrnes' operation too much credit, but they might have seen a lot in Carter. KW probably did too, and I'm definitely the type who doesn't value first baseman all that much. That's part of why Brandon Allen doesn't worry me.

I don't have any qualms about parting with Carter. First baseman come and go, which has been my stance on this whole Gonzalez issue from day one. If you can get him for a song -- which we won't, and our system won't produce the type of package necessary -- do it. If not, move on. I'd much rather have Berkman anyway.

Didn't Arizona acquire Carter as another piece to deal for Haren? The D-backs were loaded with OF prospects and also included Carlos Gonzalez in the Haren trade.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 09:53 AM

Didn't Arizona acquire Carter as another piece to deal for Haren? The D-backs were loaded with OF prospects and also included Carlos Gonzalez in the Haren trade.
Edit: I think Carter was there for one year, though I may be wrong.

Yes, I was wrong. But I don't know if he was acquired specifically to deal to the A's.

Pablo_Honey

03-03-2010, 10:02 AM

Edit: I think Carter was there for one year, though I may be wrong.

Yes, I was wrong. But I don't know if he was acquired specifically to deal to the A's.
IIRC, A's wanted a stud 1B prospect and D-Backs didn't have one so they acquired Carter from us and traded him as part of the package for Haren.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 10:07 AM

IIRC, A's wanted a stud 1B prospect and D-Backs didn't have one so they acquired Carter from us and traded him as part of the package for Haren.
That could be true, but they had Daric Barton, who was considered a stud at the time (and still might be someday).

doublem23

03-03-2010, 12:29 PM

The same way...

... Quentin's breakout in 2008 slipped past 29 teams...

...Dye's resurgence slipped past 28 teams...

...Floyd's development slipped past 29 teams...

...Jenks' career resurrection slipped past 29 teams...

...Thornton's improvement slipped past 29 teams...

I could go on, but suffice it to say that it happens. All. The. Time.

CG already debunked the Quentin/Floyd/Thornton points and lest we forget that at least one other team offered Dye more money as an FA between 2004-05 and the only reason he signed here was because he already had a handshake agreement with KW to join the Sox. So let's not pretend like we found him playing 16'' softball or something, he was in demand.

TheOldRoman

03-03-2010, 12:58 PM

CG already debunked the Quentin/Floyd/Thornton points and lest we forget that at least one other team offered Dye more money as an FA between 2004-05 and the only reason he signed here was because he already had a handshake agreement with KW to join the Sox. So let's not pretend like we found him playing 16'' softball or something, he was in demand.He debunked nothing, and if you have to site Grbeck in an arguement, you automatically lose. The Sox got Floyd for Garcia, whose arm was falling off at the time. He had almost no value. It was a horrible move and Floyd was a failed prospect. CG and his ilk screamed for two years that Floyd was no good, even through his 2008 season. I guess they realized they were wrong last year. If Garcia was all it took to get Floyd, any everybody knew he was going to be great, many other teams could have had him.

Thornton was acquired for Joe freaking Borchard. They were both out of options, so the Mariners took whatever they could get. If everybody knew Thornton was going to be the best left handed reliever in baseball over the next 4 seasons, don't you think somebody would have stepped up and offered something more than Joe Borchard?

As for Quentin, obviously the temporary emergence of Young and the signing of Byrnes lead to AZ looking to move him. However, he was traded straight up for a single A prospect. Other teams knew how talented he was, yet no other teams thought he was worth more than that.

Dye was "in demand" then about as much as Thome was this offseason. The Sox and Rangers made him offers, and nobody else got into the action ot my knowledge. Having two teams interested is not being in demand. If everyone in baseball knew he would put up the best numbers of any RF in the AL over the next 4.5 years, don't you think they would have pursued him?

asindc

03-03-2010, 01:31 PM

CG already debunked the Quentin/Floyd/Thornton points and lest we forget that at least one other team offered Dye more money as an FA between 2004-05 and the only reason he signed here was because he already had a handshake agreement with KW to join the Sox. So let's not pretend like we found him playing 16'' softball or something, he was in demand.

He debunked nothing, and if you have to site Grbeck in an arguement, you automatically lose. The Sox got Floyd for Garcia, whose arm was falling off at the time. He had almost no value. It was a horrible move and Floyd was a failed prospect. CG and his ilk screamed for two years that Floyd was no good, even through his 2008 season. I guess they realized they were wrong last year. If Garcia was all it took to get Floyd, any everybody knew he was going to be great, many other teams could have had him.

Thornton was acquired for Joe freaking Borchard. They were both out of options, so the Mariners took whatever they could get. If everybody knew Thornton was going to be the best left handed reliever in baseball over the next 4 seasons, don't you think somebody would have stepped up and offered something more than Joe Borchard?

As for Quentin, obviously the temporary emergence of Young and the signing of Byrnes lead to AZ looking to move him. However, he was traded straight up for a single A prospect. Other teams knew how talented he was, yet no other teams thought he was worth more than that.

Dye was "in demand" then about as much as Thome was this offseason. The Sox and Rangers made him offers, and nobody else got into the action ot my knowledge. Having two teams interested is not being in demand. If everyone in baseball knew he would put up the best numbers of any RF in the AL over the next 4.5 years, don't you think they would have pursued him?

doub,

If you have knowledge that more than two teams were interested in Dye in the 2004 offseason, I would like to see it. If not, then as you are assuming 29 other teams were not interested in Jones, it is likewise reasonable to assume the other 28 teams were not interested in Dye in the 2004 offseason. My point once again is to refute the notion that since no other teams seemed to be interested in Jones, that makes signing him a bad move. All the examples given suggest that such an assumption is specious at best.

asindc

03-03-2010, 01:36 PM

He debunked nothing, and if you have to site Grbeck in an arguement, you automatically lose. The Sox got Floyd for Garcia, whose arm was falling off at the time. He had almost no value. It was a horrible move and Floyd was a failed prospect. CG and his ilk screamed for two years that Floyd was no good, even through his 2008 season. I guess they realized they were wrong last year. If Garcia was all it took to get Floyd, any everybody knew he was going to be great, many other teams could have had him.

Thornton was acquired for Joe freaking Borchard. They were both out of options, so the Mariners took whatever they could get. If everybody knew Thornton was going to be the best left handed reliever in baseball over the next 4 seasons, don't you think somebody would have stepped up and offered something more than Joe Borchard?

As for Quentin, obviously the temporary emergence of Young and the signing of Byrnes lead to AZ looking to move him. However, he was traded straight up for a single A prospect. Other teams knew how talented he was, yet no other teams thought he was worth more than that.

Dye was "in demand" then about as much as Thome was this offseason. The Sox and Rangers made him offers, and nobody else got into the action ot my knowledge. Having two teams interested is not being in demand. If everyone in baseball knew he would put up the best numbers of any RF in the AL over the next 4.5 years, don't you think they would have pursued him?

Thanks, TOR. That is the crucial to the point being made here. A player's demand does not necessarily correlate with his future productivity.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 01:37 PM

He debunked nothing, and if you have to site Grbeck in an arguement, you automatically lose.
Won't address that.

The Sox got Floyd for Garcia, whose arm was falling off at the time. He had almost no value. It was a horrible move and Floyd was a failed prospect. CG and his ilk screamed for two years that Floyd was no good, even through his 2008 season. I guess they realized they were wrong last year. If Garcia was all it took to get Floyd, any everybody knew he was going to be great, many other teams could have had him. Here's what I said about the Garcia deal:

What's with the love for Garcia? We got some young arms for a rental whose best days are far behind him.

Oh man, trying to build around young talent instead of an overrated set of innings eaters who are headed towards free agency. What a bunch of idiots.

I highly doubt there was a better offer than this. KW would not intentionally make a poor deal. Get a grip, people. Freddy had ONE good month. The rest were horrible.

Maybe the market for a pitcher in decline with dropping velocity isn't all it was made up to be?

Garcia is nearing the end of his peak years, and there was absolutely no chance that he would come back after 2007. McCarthy will outpitch him in 2007, and this frees up salary for other areas.

I hope people do realize that Garcia is a declining, back of the end rotation starter who boasts an 88 MPH fastball...AND he was gone after 2007.

Not if the pitchers pan out. Broadway, McCullough, Gio, Floyd, McCarthy, Haeger are all viable prospects and who's to say they won't develop nicely?
Edit: and regarding Floyd, I said he would need to improve his peripherals to maintain his good performance. He did. 2008 was fueled by luck. 2009 by skill.
Thornton was acquired for Joe freaking Borchard. They were both out of options, so the Mariners took whatever they could get. If everybody knew Thornton was going to be the best left handed reliever in baseball over the next 4 seasons, don't you think somebody would have stepped up and offered something more than Joe Borchard?I don't think everyone knew that, necessarily. Deft move on KW's part, but portraying a one for one deal as a waiver deal or case of free agency is dishonest. Not all 30 teams are involved.

As for Quentin, obviously the temporary emergence of Young and the signing of Byrnes lead to AZ looking to move him. However, he was traded straight up for a single A prospect. Other teams knew how talented he was, yet no other teams thought he was worth more than that.Young is a CF. His development had nothing to do with Quentin.

Sometimes an A prospect is better than AA-AAA.

Dye was "in demand" then about as much as Thome was this offseason. The Sox and Rangers made him offers, and nobody else got into the action ot my knowledge. Having two teams interested is not being in demand. If everyone in baseball knew he would put up the best numbers of any RF in the AL over the next 4.5 years, don't you think they would have pursued him?I don't think they all knew that. Neither did KW.

doublem23

03-03-2010, 01:42 PM

He debunked nothing, and if you have to site Grbeck in an arguement, you automatically lose. The Sox got Floyd for Garcia, whose arm was falling off at the time. He had almost no value. It was a horrible move and Floyd was a failed prospect. CG and his ilk screamed for two years that Floyd was no good, even through his 2008 season. I guess they realized they were wrong last year. If Garcia was all it took to get Floyd, any everybody knew he was going to be great, many other teams could have had him.

Thornton was acquired for Joe freaking Borchard. They were both out of options, so the Mariners took whatever they could get. If everybody knew Thornton was going to be the best left handed reliever in baseball over the next 4 seasons, don't you think somebody would have stepped up and offered something more than Joe Borchard?

As for Quentin, obviously the temporary emergence of Young and the signing of Byrnes lead to AZ looking to move him. However, he was traded straight up for a single A prospect. Other teams knew how talented he was, yet no other teams thought he was worth more than that.

Dye was "in demand" then about as much as Thome was this offseason. The Sox and Rangers made him offers, and nobody else got into the action ot my knowledge. Having two teams interested is not being in demand. If everyone in baseball knew he would put up the best numbers of any RF in the AL over the next 4.5 years, don't you think they would have pursued him?

A) Knock off the personal insults. No more warnings.

B) Picking up a player via trade is still not the same as picking up a free agent, you're still giving up familiar assets for unfamiliar ones. Nobody is saying KW wasn't shrewd in picking up guys like Floyd or Thornton or Quentin, but to label them as complete castaways like Jones is doing them all a disservice. Furthermore, none of these guys were thrust immediately into prominent roles with the Sox; Floyd spent most of his 1st year here in Charlotte, Thornton wasn't automatically the go-to guy in the bullpen, and Quentin wouldn't have broken North with the team had Jerry Owens not gotten hurt. All of these guys were acquired with the understanding they were young, highly-touted players that would be reclamation projects. That's very different than a 33-year-old OF who hasn't been productive in 2 consecutive seasons that we're going to have bat clean-up.

Furthermore, Dye signed with the Sox on December 4, 2004, so there's 4 months of off-season that could have played out. He signed here because he's a good guy and had an informal agreement with Kenny, but there was at least 1 team that DEFINITELY offered him more than the Sox did, so comparing him to a guy who is barely making the MLB minimum on a 1-year-deal is a bit of a stretch, no?

TheOldRoman

03-03-2010, 01:53 PM

I don't think everyone knew that, necessarily. Deft move on KW's part, but portraying a one for one deal as a waiver deal or case of free agency is dishonest. Not all 30 teams are involved.
Why? Unless you think the Mariners targets Borchard, any other team could have offered more than him.

Young is a CF. His development had nothing to do with Quentin.
Byrnes can play CF and I believe Upton can, also. They signed Byrnes to the new deal, so he wasn't going anywhere. If Young wouldn't have had his breakout season, either Byrnes or Upton would have been in CF with Carlos in RF.

Sometimes an A prospect is better than AA-AAA.Right, but we are talking about the guy who was the AL MVP if not for breaking his hand on a bat. I realize Carter was a good prospect (though not as highly thought of as currently). However, if Carlos was this MVP in waiting, a number of teams could have offered more than a single A prospect with lots of potential.

I don't think they all knew that. Neither did KW. I don't doubt KW even imagined how well Dye would work out. However, at that point anybody could have signed him. He was seen by some as over the hill and many thought his career would never be the same after the broken leg.

asindc

03-03-2010, 01:55 PM

Won't address that.

Here's what I said about the Garcia deal:

Edit: and regarding Floyd, I said he would need to improve his peripherals to maintain his good performance. He did. 2008 was fueled by luck. 2009 by skill.
I don't think everyone knew that, necessarily. Deft move on KW's part, but portraying a one for one deal as a waiver deal or case of free agency is dishonest. Not all 30 teams are involved.

Young is a CF. His development had nothing to do with Quentin.

Sometimes an A prospect is better than AA-AAA.

I don't think they all knew that. Neither did KW.

1) About Floyd: I do remember you citing his 2008 BABIP as an indication of exceptional good luck. By the way, I'm not citing these examples as FA deals to compare with the Jones signing. I'm citing them as examples of very productive Sox players who were not in demand at the time they were acquired, by whatever method. The fact is that other teams had the chance to acquire them and apparently thought they were not worth it.

2) Yes, Young's brief flash had very little or nothing to do with Quentin's status in Ariz. I am still somewhat bewildered, though, that no other team apparently offered at least as much as the Sox did for him. When the Sox acquired him, I thought that he really must have a debilitating injury.

3) Indeed. I still think Chris Carter will be a starting 1B in the majors.

4) No one could have predicted that Dye have the run he did with the Sox. KW did acquire him to be the starting RF though, so he obviously saw something that apparently only one other GM did.

Which gets to the point that I will reiterate: One of KW's strong suits is his ability to sell high/buy low. Hell, he has to since one of his weak points is building a strong minor league system. The examples are given to show that, despite doub's implication, sometimes KW demonstrates the courage to buy low on guys who justifiably have low demand for several reasons because he sees something there. I'm suggesting that since he does this for a living, maybe he sees something with Jones that the rest of us don't. His track record certainly has earned him the benefit of the doubt, IMO.

Craig Grebeck

03-03-2010, 01:58 PM

1. I also worried about Floyd's BB/K numbers. It wasn't just his BABIP, that was a piece of the puzzle.
2. Both Swisher deals go against the skill you attributed to KW there. Are they exceptions? I hope so.

asindc

03-03-2010, 02:04 PM

1. I also worried about Floyd's BB/K numbers. It wasn't just his BABIP, that was a piece of the puzzle.
2. Both Swisher deals go against the skill you attributed to KW there. Are they exceptions? I hope so.

No question. For the record, I was lukewarm about the first Swisher deal (because I thought he paid too much and thus was buying high) and did not like the second deal at all (but found it necessary). As I noted in another post, KW is far from infallible. But buying low is one of his strong suits.

doublem23

03-03-2010, 02:08 PM

If you guys really wanted to bring up a legitimate comparison to the current Andruw Jones debacle, the one sitting right underneath your nose is 2009 Scott Podsednik. THERE was a guy who was literally sitting on his butt, available to all 30 teams, and the Sox were the only ones who came a-calling, and Scotty Pods produced a nice little season.

Now, I feel I should point out that the 2009 White Sox, with Podsednik getting the vast majority of AB at the lead-off spot had one of the worst offenses in the American League, had a losing season, and finished 3rd place in the worst division in the worst division in all of baseball. I'm not blaming Podsednik for all this, mind you, we were better off having him, I'm just reinforcing my belief that good teams who should be expected to win don't rely on scrap-heap players to magically refind their game. And they certainly don't rely on these scrap-heap players to fill important roles on their team, like primary DH/clean-up hitter, on Day 1 with absolutely no fallback plan if Plan A somehow fails.

kittle42

03-03-2010, 02:20 PM

I'm just reinforcing my belief that good teams who should be expected to win don't rely on scrap-heap players to magically refind their game. And they certainly don't rely on these scrap-heap players to fill important roles on their team, like primary DH/clean-up hitter, on Day 1 with absolutely no fallback plan if Plan A somehow fails.

But the Sox have generally been doing this for years, with really 2006 being the exception when they made a very straightforward effort to go for it all and simply had their 2006 pitching producers collapse, for the most part.

asindc

03-03-2010, 02:21 PM

If you guys really wanted to bring up a legitimate comparison to the current Andruw Jones debacle, the one sitting right underneath your nose is 2009 Scott Podsednik. THERE was a guy who was literally sitting on his butt, available to all 30 teams, and the Sox were the only ones who came a-calling, and Scotty Pods produced a nice little season.

Now, I feel I should point out that the 2009 White Sox, with Podsednik getting the vast majority of AB at the lead-off spot had one of the worst offenses in the American League, had a losing season, and finished 3rd place in the worst division in the worst division in all of baseball. I'm not blaming Podsednik for all this, mind you, we were better off having him, I'm just reinforcing my belief that good teams who should be expected to win don't rely on scrap-heap players to magically refind their game. And they certainly don't rely on these scrap-heap players to fill important roles on their team, like primary DH/clean-up hitter, on Day 1 with absolutely no fallback plan if Plan A somehow fails.

Well, they did try to acquire Matsui and Damon. I know that you think they should have at least matched Detroit's $8 million, but none of us know if that was financially possible. You might be right in thinking that it was possible, but we don't know for sure.

As for Plan B, Plan C, etc., I have no idea what KW has in mind if Jones falters. I am glad that he is not saying anything about it publicly. I like that trait in any GM. I think teams that run their mouths about who they want end up spending too much money.

They make bad moves. It's okay to acknowledge they can be dumb sometimes.

Which is exactly the right attitude to take when you play in a park like the Cell. Homeruns will come by accident. For too long, and you cannot argue this, the Sox have gotten into modes where all they can do is hit homeruns to score runs. Which is nice, for the few days that they're hot. They put up 10+ runs a game and they look invincible. Then they go cold for two weeks because they're doing nothing but hitting long fly outs.

If Rios and others go into every game with the mentality that the homerun will come on its own instead of trying to kill the ball, you'll see a lot less swinging for the fences, trying to be a hero. Something I think hurt Rios even more when he came here.

Which is exactly the right attitude to take when you play in a park like the Cell. Homeruns will come by accident. For too long, and you cannot argue this, the Sox have gotten into modes where all they can do is hit homeruns to score runs. Which is nice, for the few days that they're hot. They put up 10+ runs a game and they look invincible. Then they go cold for two weeks because they're doing nothing but hitting long fly outs.

If Rios and others go into every game with the mentality that the homerun will come on its own instead of trying to kill the ball, you'll see a lot less swinging for the fences, trying to be a hero. Something I think hurt Rios even more when he came here.

I can't believe people still take Guillen's words literally. It is truly amazing to me...

TheVulture

03-03-2010, 02:59 PM

1. I also worried about Floyd's BB/K numbers. It wasn't just his BABIP, that was a piece of the puzzle.

I agree BB/K numbers can be looked at as indicators of future success. I'm a little confused on BABIP aspect. If I'm not mistaken, the argument is an abnormally low BABIP suggests the pitcher was lucky, but couldn't it just be an indicator that the pitcher induced poor contact?

Nellie_Fox

03-03-2010, 03:05 PM

...they certainly don't rely on these scrap-heap players to fill important roles on their team, like primary DH/clean-up hitter, on Day 1 with absolutely no fallback plan if Plan A somehow fails.You still haven't answered the question of where do you get the idea that he is going to bat cleanup? I've seen nothing of the sort anywhere. Also, teams don't generally go around announcing their "fallback plans." Doesn't exactly instill confidence in the starters.